Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

I've taught Fun Home before--it's really a rich text, and densely allusive (although of course there are more interesting things to do critically than unpacking allusions). We're all entitled to our curmudgeonliness, but I don't really see how studying comics academically would differ in principle from studying film, though certainly any artform has its share of boring works.

The Washington Post ain't what it was.

I can think of a bunch, c'mon Hurting

xp

criticism of the earlier article

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/all/2015/08/debating-the-new-campus-pc/402113/#note-403108-how-widespread-are-trigger-warnings-really

maybe the interesting part is when the author quotes his 2013-grad research assistant:

While in college, I took a variety of humanities classes, including several women’s studies and gender studies classes where we discussed sensitive topics like sexual assault, abortion, and genital mutilation. Although I had several professors acknowledge that we would be discussing challenging material, I never once heard the phrase “trigger warning” or “triggering” from any faculty or any of my fellow students.

The first time I saw the phrase “trigger warning” was nearly a year after I graduated, when a then-current student used it when sharing an article about campus sexual assault on Facebook. I had to look the phrase up on Urban Dictionary. When I talk about trigger warnings with fellow 2013 grads, many have never heard of them and struggle to understand the concept. Those who are familiar with trigger warnings generally do not remember hearing the phrase used during our time on campus.

However, when I shared Greg and Jon’s article with current students at my alma mater, I was intrigued by not only how many rushed to defend trigger warnings but also how many consider them a common courtesy. I think this is what explains why trigger warnings have been generating so much discussion and debate— people are mystified by how quickly they are gaining prevalence on campuses. The fact that just two years removed from campus a phenomenon most of my fellow students did not even know existed has become a practice many consider a matter of basic decency is fascinating.

The NCAC’s recent survey on trigger warnings found that 13 percent of professors said they had received requests from students for trigger warnings. About 11 percent said students in their classes had complained to them or to administrators about their failure to use trigger warnings. Some might argue that these percentages sound too small to indicate a campus trend, but when you take into account how low those percentages likely were just two years ago, it does seem that this is indeed a rapidly growing campus practice.

Considering how the concept of PTSD has spread from its initial application to post-combat soldiers to being applied to other traumas, this just seems like another step in that progression. For me, the warnings are not an issue, in that they are a very minimal accommodation and requires almost no time or effort to provide. They will also help to raise awareness of PTSD.

Where things get tricky is the question of whether a professor has any further obligations beyond simply warning students that some of the course material might trigger their PTSD. Which is to say does the standard of making a 'reasonable accommodation' require a professor to change the course materials for PTSD students or excuse PTSD students from work expected of their classmates. Once you contemplate that, you've entered a different and more dangerous territory.

I'd be interested in seeing their survey data (looks like about ~750 replies) sorted by discipline.

I think the rapid rise of trigger warnings is more closely tied to the rapid rise in spoiler alerts than any awareness and understanding of PTSD.

haha like by isomorphism somehow

read the kelefa sanneh nyorker one yesterday, it was ok but you kind of realize how the "read two or three trade books representing either side of the topic" format of those kinds of new yorker pieces are maybe increasingly irrelevant when so much of the discussion is happening online. like he reads books by two conservative fox news talking heads and another by a liberal fox news pundit, not exactly who i think of as driving these conversations

link http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/the-hell-you-say

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/why-we-should-fear-university-inc.html?action=click&contentCollection=magazine®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=1

deboer gettin that nyt money

If students have adopted a litigious approach to regulating campus life, they are only working within the culture that colleges have built for them. When your environment so deeply resembles a Fortune 500 company, it makes sense to take every complaint straight to H.R. I don’t excuse students who so zealously pursue their vision of campus life that they file Title IX complaints against people whose opinions they don’t like. But I recognize their behavior as a rational response within a bureaucracy. It’s hard to blame people within a system — particularly people so young — who take advantage of structures they’ve been told exist to help them. The problem is that these structures exist for the institutions themselves, and thus the erosion of political freedom is ultimately a consequence of the institutions. When we identify students as the real threat to intellectual freedom on campus, we’re almost always looking in the wrong place.

Current conditions result in neither the muscular and effective student activism favored by the defenders of current campus politics nor the emboldened, challenging professors that critics prefer. Instead, both sides seem to be gradually marginalized in favor of the growing managerial class that dominates so many campuses. Yes, students get to dictate increasingly elaborate and punitive speech codes that some of them prefer. But what could be more corporate or bureaucratic than the increasingly tight control on language and culture in the workplace? Those efforts both divert attention from the material politics that the administration often strenuously opposes (like divestment campaigns) and contribute to a deepening cultural disrespect for student activism. Professors, meanwhile, cling for dear life, trying merely to preserve whatever tenure track they can, prevented by academic culture, a lack of coordination and interdepartmental resentments from rallying together as labor activists. That the contemporary campus quiets the voices of both students and teachers — the two indispensable actors in the educational exchange — speaks to the funhouse-mirror quality of today’s academy.

these structures exist for the institutions themselves

what could be more corporate or bureaucratic than the increasingly tight control on language and culture in the workplace?

bingo!

deBoer clowns himself fairly often, but I gotta say that passage is pretty otm about how misguided it is to continuously blame student activists for any ills in modern academic culture. Students may provide the most entertaining anecdata, but young-ish professors and adjuncts live in fear of career ruination because universities have an interest in keeping them totally expendable. It's just much less entertaining to read/write about than "18-year-olds are too sensitive, can you believe what happened at [insert totally random college]"

bureaucracy is awesome and i never understand why so few people get that

The term bureaucracy was invented to describe the Russian government under the Czars. It was not a very cooperative or efficient government.

a melancholy trotsky in exile: "perhaps bureaucracy itself is a phase of history, one from which we have yet to emerge"

http://theslot.jezebel.com/obama-is-not-cool-with-coddled-liberal-college-students-1730754601

http://studentactivism.net/2015/09/15/jonathan-chait-doesnt-care-about-free-speech-people/

probably more accurate to say chait just wasn't aware of the no-protest policy. certainly wouldn't be the first time chait's been idiotically wrong

while i'm probably more of a chaiter (and, apparently, in line with obama) when it comes to the trigger warning/opt-out movement, i don't see anything wrong with students trying to block certain speakers from speaking. that seems like a pretty basic exercise in free speech to me

i know people who still talk about berkeley students shouting down jeane kirkpatrick in 1983 like it was some horrifying totalitarian spectacle, really awakened them to the ugliness of the left, etc., like jeane kirkpatrick was rendered helplessly mute for life

(they don't literally say "and that was the moment the ringleaders should have been taken by the scruff of the neck and thrown out of the university once and for all," but)

http://wesleyanargus.com/2015/09/21/petition-demands-defunding-of-argus/

http://wesleyanargus.com/2015/09/17/staff-editorial/

http://wesleyanargus.com/2015/09/14/of-race-and-sex/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/23/wesleyan-students-boycott-campus-newspaper-threaten-funding

Ha -- that's my line of work. This paragraph made me lol:

The boycott, the petition states, would last until the Argus met a number of demands, including creating staff positions that pay students work study or award course credit. Currently, the Argus has enough funding for just two paid positions, and neither are part of the editorial staff. Its reporters and editors are all volunteers.

the student newspaper I advise, alas, depends on student fees allocated by SGA, the organization that the paper covers. It creates, ah, interesting confrontations on occasion, but we lack the ad revenue to be independent (and now that so many student publications which have gone indie have shut down or are in serious trouble it looked like we played it smart). We're lucky enough to pay our editors/directors and staff writers. I'd love to get more work study positions available!

Its reporters and editors are all volunteers.

This paper is no different than many others...? How do you force things on volunteers?

Also: college newspapers are home to terrible writing. They incubate it. College newspapers are where they learn whether deadlines and getting yelled at and being poorly or not paid means anything to them.

i wonder how much of their student money is itemized. when i was in school there was talk of declaring more of it so people could understand how much their fees supported various things. seems like a prevailing 'don't want my money going to any bad things' attitude (in the government e.g.) might be at play?

also wesleyan has had a lot of activity around divestment campaigns on campus iirc, so maybe it's a natural for their activist communities

still, sheesh, it's practically a bulletin board. just send in an article!

most days opinion editors are lucky that someone sends an unsolicited piece before deadline

Truth. I was an Opinion editor for a year in college. I didn't really understand what I was supposed to be doing but even still there was no line of submissions waiting to be born in print.

Bringing back painful memories of the terrible op-eds I wrote for my university paper, albeit from a very different political POV to Stascavage.

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article35735889.html

This was a cynical attack on learning and an attempt to censor writing exploring the fraught histories of U.S. overseas military interventions. Yet reflecting on such topics is exactly the task that the memory of 9/11 and all other mass atrocities urgently requires of us.

Admirably, students at UNC have consistently opposed attempts to stifle public education and critical thought. This includes strong resistance to smear campaigns against UNC orchestrated by the John William Pope Center that aim to justify university budget cuts in order to advance the program of tax cuts being pushed by North Carolina’s state legislature.

It is time to end the hijacking of the public trauma of 9/11 for the service of such narrow political agendas. To ask critical questions about the legacies of mass atrocity is our collective responsibility. If we don’t answer that call, there will be no possibility of moving beyond the acts of retribution, hatred and fear that continue to remake today’s world in the image of Manhattan’s rubble.

Neel Ahuja is associate professor of English, comparative literature and geography at UNC-Chapel Hill. He is the author of “Bioinsecurities: Disease Interventions, Empire, and the Government of Species,” forthcoming from Duke University Press. He teaches the courses “Literature of 9/11” and “The New Wars” at UNC.

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/23/how-marcuse-made-todays-students-less-tolerant-than-their-parents/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/05/incident-mount-holyoke-renews-debate-talking-about-race-classrooms

Brown called the letter insincere and “nonchalant.” She said the “briefness of the letter not only represents how much of a priority Professor Hill did not find this matter to be, but also how much administrators found it to be.”

In response, she wrote her own letter to college administrators, which she shared in Radix. She asked the administration to “take responsibility for your employees -- especially the tenured professors. Stop protecting them. Professor Hill is not and has never been the only professor to provide such a hostile, uncomfortable environment in a classroom. From sociology to politics to computer science, almost every student I've encountered can share a story about a time they were forced to feel belittled, humiliated and hindered by tenured professors.”

Brown also said that the college’s emphasis on cultural diversity in recruiting fell short in practice, once recruits arrived on campus.

Lastly, she said, “Recognize that, despite recent accounts from multiple old, white critics and professors, ‘freedom of speech’ has not been lost. Asking to be treated with basic human decency and not tolerating a mind-set appropriately placed in the 1950s does not make for a ‘softer’ generation.

“We are sick of your intolerance and portrayal of political correctness as a negative modern-day attribute. We have found that it is high time for your bullshit to be put on display for all to see.”

that classroom discussion sounds horrible, what a terrible thing for a prof to

I wish they could have gone to the prof first to complain, though a prof who would say those things in class seems like to be the kind of prof who likes to be "intimidating" to students, big loud fish in a little pond kinda thing, imagining himself as a drill sergeant (I'm sure you all know the type). I might just go to the chair in that case too.

sheesh, now i am sorry for starting that thread when i look at this one. just ignore that other one.

http://mancunion.com/2015/10/07/update-yiannopoulos-also-banned-from-censorship-event/

Following the decision to prohibit Julie Bindel from speaking at an event hosted by the University of Manchester Free Speech and Secular Society, the Students’ Union Executive Team have now moved to ban men’s rights activist Milo Yiannapoulos, who was originally scheduled to debate alongside her.

Bindel and Yianapoulos were both booked to speak at a debate entitled “From liberation to censorship: Does modern feminism have a problem with free speech?” to take place on the 15th of October.

In their initial statement the Students’ Union Executive Team rejected Bindel on the grounds that her appearance would be “potentially in breach of [ the ] safe space policy.”

Yiannopoulos was, however, initially permitted to attend, albeit under the conditions the event had increased security levels and was ticketed.

In a comment on the Manchester Students’ Union Facebook page to this original decision Yiannopoulos wrote, “I’m astonished that I wasn’t outright banned as well. I’ll have to up my game!”

Women’s Officer Jess Lishak posted an extended explanation in a blog post—since removed due to developments in this situation—to her official Facebook page. In this she described Bindel as a “famous transphobe,” and Yiannopoulos as a “professional misogynist.”

Since this, however, the Union has said that they have been made aware of new information and evidence regarding Yiannopoulos and have amended their original statement after seeking legal advice.

In an update to their original announcement, the Union stated: “Further to our previous decision to ban Julie Bindel from speaking on campus, we are extending this decision to Milo Yiannopoulos.

“We have been made aware of various comments lambasting rape survivors and trans* people, and as such we are concerned for the safety of our students on the topic of this event. He is a rape apologist and has repeatedly used derogatory and debasing ableist language when describing members of the trans* community.

“This undermines the principles of liberation enshrined in the Students’ Union, as outlined in the Safe Space policy. We believe these views could incite hatred against both trans* people and women who have experienced sexual violence. As we believe it is probable these views would be aired in this discussion should he be allowed to speak on campus, we have no choice but to ban him.

“As we made clear to the society, this means that this event with the proposed speakers will not be going ahead under the banner of the Students’ Union, with our support or using our resources.”

Yiannopoulos posted an article to his own blog last year titled “Transgenderism is a psychiatric disorder: Its sufferers need therapy, not surgery”.

The Free Speech and Secular Society is yet to officially respond to this development, but they promised in yesterday’s statement that they will postpone the event and “will not go ahead… until some of the conditions imposed upon us have been lifted.”

Julie Bindel also tweeted, directly to the Union: “I am going to fight you in this. You are the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

Talks are ongoing between the Executive and the Free Speech and Secular Society about this situation.

Responding to the news, Yiannapoulos told The Mancunion: “I’m a provocateur and it’s always going to be easy for uptight, censorious types to misrepresent my tweets, jokes and column-writing as ‘hateful.’

“And I know how badly I get under the skin of authoritarian finger-waggers, so I’m not surprised to have been banned. But I’m shocked that Julie Bindel is still getting this eleven years after a column she has apologised for many times.

“I make no apologies for questioning bullshit rape statistics and setting out my views on better treatment pathways for transgender patients. That I do so in strong and occasionally waspish language is irrelevant.

“Indeed, the whole point of the debate was to consider whether feminism has a problem with unfettered speech. I think now we know.”

Bindel and Yianapoulos were both booked to speak at a debate entitled “From liberation to censorship: Does modern feminism have a problem with free speech?” to take place on the 15th of October.

lol why

waspish

Bindel and Yianapoulos were both booked to speak at a debate entitled “From liberation to censorship: Does modern feminism have a problem with free speech?” to take place on the 15th of October.

so, they set a trap, and campus administrators walked right into it. congrats all!

Branwell just wrote an eloquent and great post on the other thread, but are we seriously discussing Milo under the banner of 'free speech'? The guy is organizing harassment of people he disagrees with, he is NOT a free speech advocate. He is a lying scumbag who's every word is about silencing dissent.

yeah he seems like a turd who's using this whole situation to his advantage. hence the "trap" i referred to earlier.

he sounds like a creep obviously, the point of interest was in the theme and the running of the invites, which you'd think organizers would be cautious with given THE NAME OF THE EVENT.

i don't know the speaker's rep. it sounds like she had her bona fides as a feminist prior to her notoriety from her 'no trans ppl in women-only spaces' views.

http://www.chron.com/local/education/campus-chronicles/article/campus-carry-ut-austin-dildo-dildos-texas-6563276.php?cmpid=fb-desktop#next

TRIGGER WARNING

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/pistol-packing-students-make-professors-nervous.html

“If people feel there might be a gun in the classroom, students have said that it makes them feel like they would be much more hesitant to raise controversial issues,” UT history professor and petition organizer Joan Neuberger told Daily Kos. “The classroom is a very special place, and it needs to be a safe place, and that means safe from guns.”

is carrying a gun to class an episode of free speech?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/pistol-packing-students-make-professors-nervous.html

“If people feel there might be a gun in the classroom, students have said that it makes them feel like they would be much more hesitant to raise controversial issues,” UT history professor and petition organizer Joan Neuberger told Daily Kos. “The classroom is a very special place, and it needs to be a safe place, and that means safe from guns.”
― j., Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:33 AM (7 hours ago)

talk about a
.
.
.
.
trigger warning

if a student brought a gun to class i'd just leave and refuse to teach

what about a gun made out of clock parts?