
University of Chicago: ‘We Do Not Support So-Called Trigger Warnings’ - ourmandave
http://time.com/4466021/uchicago-trigger-warnings/
======
basseq
This is _tough_.

With the aspirations of "civility and mutual respect" along with "rigorous
debate, discussion, and even disagreement", I would hope any truly egregious
edge cases disappear.

In the middle, I think people have the right to remove themselves from
discussions—civil or otherwise—that they don't want to listen to or engage.
But that right _doesn 't_ limit others' ability to have those selfsame
discussions in public or private venues, nor require others to give you
advance warning about it.

And finally, U. Chicago has the right to set degree requirements. If you are
unable or unwilling to meet those requirements (e.g., not participating in
discussions), then you have no place at that institution. After all, the "real
world" won't hold your hand.

So...

 _Trigger Warnings_ ("A trigger warning is advance notice about subject
material that may be difficult for certain students to read, hear or see.") U.
Chicago says they "don't support" them. I think actively discouraging them in
every case seems extreme, but the institution simply _can 't_ be required to
provide trigger warnings in every case for every individual. In other words, a
_lack_ of trigger warning doesn't mean _you_ won't be triggered.

 _Safe Spaces_ ("A safe space is a place they can go to avoid those subjects
or heal after confronting them.") U. Chicago doesn't condone the creation of
safe spaces. Similarly, I think this stance is extreme. Safe spaces may be
necessary for individuals. But U. Chicago is under no obligation to provide
them for you or excuse you from other discussions as a result.

In other words, U. Chicago isn't a place for people who don't want to discuss
issues that make them uncomfortable. Which, on its face, seems reasonable to
me.

~~~
jordigh
> "A trigger warning is advance notice about subject material that may be
> difficult for certain students to read, hear or see."

But that's not what trigger warnings are for... it's not just about mild
discomfort. They're to prevent _panic attacks_.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger)

Whether trigger warnings are effective or not is a different matter, but of
course if you portray them as being about being offended or mild discomfort
that they sound utterly stupid.

~~~
Jeema101
Avoidance in the form of 'trigger warnings' may actually worsen the underlying
problem for people with PTSD because avoidance can strengthen the underlying
fear.

Successful treatment often actually involves confronting the fear, little by
little, until it no longer causes discomfort:

"Exposure therapy is a type of cognitive behavioral therapy[118] that involves
assisting trauma survivors to re-experience distressing trauma-related
memories and reminders in order to facilitate habituation and successful
emotional processing of the trauma memory. Most exposure therapy programs
include both imaginal confrontation with the traumatic memories and real-life
exposure to trauma reminders; this therapy modality is well supported by
clinical evidence."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Management)

~~~
tangent128
Exposure therapy can be effective, but under controlled circumstances as
supervised by a professional and prepared for by the patient.

Uncontrolled exposure is more likely to worsen the anxiety than extinguish it.

~~~
aninhumer
I feel like the idea the parent was suggesting is that avoidance behaviour
itself can increase anxiety about the topic, and that encouraging it may end
up being more harmful than the risk of uncontrolled exposure, especially when
the result of such exposure is not _necessarily_ negative.

------
superuser2
It's important to acknowledge that the term "safe space" means different
things to different people.

To the Yale protestors (who were widely supported at UChicago) the entirety of
university housing at Yale was meant to be a "safe space," so it was incumbent
on the university to fire professors who voiced unwelcome opinions in that
space.

To many of the people who are angry about this letter, "safe space" means a
support-group-like room in a specific place at a specific time, which doesn't
interfere with the rest of the university's operations.

I suspect it is the former which Dean Ellison meant to attack. I find it hard
to believe that he's trying to shut down, for example, group therapy programs
for LGBTQ youth offered by the psychology arm of the university's student
health system. But I do appreciate him sending the message, "we're not going
to fire professors because you don't like what they said."

~~~
BurningFrog
Yeah, all these words mean different things to the Social Justice/Progressive
left and the rest of us.

It's one of the surest tells that a movement is wrong when they refuse to use
the regular meanings of words and start redefining them in their own usage.
People who are right never have to resort to such contrivances.

~~~
tedks
Which is why I'm sure you use the word "colored" (or worse) instead of
african/african-american, homosexual instead of gay, tranny instead of
transwoman/transman, and similar?

After all, words are just irrelevant symbol strings on top of a meaning,
right? If you're not really racist, it shouldn't matter if you only ever refer
to people of the global majority by slurs. The surest tell a movement is wrong
is when they refuse to use the regular meanings of words.

~~~
BurningFrog
If we're trying to communicate and understand the world together, what
specific words we use don't matter, only that we agree on what they mean. We
could even speak a completely non English language.

If you're instead trying to show which American political tribe you belong to,
the concerns you mention become very important.

------
jpfed
What I don't get about this is why trigger warnings and safe spaces always
seem to get lumped together in discussions like this.

It's really hard to actually create a safe space. You have to actively
intervene to prevent (or provide redress for) the "wrong" kinds of speech. I
can totally see why a university would not think safe spaces were worth it, or
even consistent with their goals.

But trigger warnings are a really simple common courtesy. There was a popular
meme spread around the Fourth of July to be considerate of veterans who may be
distressed by the sound of fireworks. If you think this is a consideration
worth extending to a veteran, it seems perfectly consistent that you'd want
survivors of rape or abuse to know that a discussion of rape or abuse was
coming up.

~~~
rapsey
> If you think this is a consideration worth extending to a veteran, it seems
> perfectly consistent that you'd want survivors of rape or abuse to know that
> a discussion of rape or abuse was coming up.

And at what point does it stop? Who decides what is a trigger warning?

If someone is afraid of wolves. Must I now stop wearing my wolf shirts?

When does it simply turn into censorship and shutting down topics and
discussions you don't want to have?

If someone has a personal issue, what gives them the right to force their
issues on others? Why must everyone adapt to them?

~~~
sp332
I think you're missing the part where they are victims, and all we're trying
to do is minimize the damage. That's a calculated risk that each person is
going to have to take for themselves.

~~~
jtuente
They were victims; they're not actively victims in the moment of a discussion.
The damage has already been done. Conversely, you can say that you're helping
with the recovery and healing process. But it's important to acknowledge the
aspects of the past, present and future as they relate to trauma.

~~~
sp332
Causing someone a panic attack in the present is not damage that "has already
been done".

~~~
jtuente
They're not experiencing a new incidence of trauma, they're reliving one.

A more "physical" corollary would be the "ghost" limb sensation for someone
who has lost one. That person doesn't lose their limb every time the sensation
comes and goes away -- it was lost before and after the incident. It may be
painful sure, but who says that recovery and healing is without pain? One of
the leading methods of treating PTSD being studied is having combat veterans
relive a similar incident through a controlled environment.

------
jordigh
One thing that bugs me is that people think trigger warnings are to make sure
people don't get offended. Being triggered is not the same thing as being
offended. Being triggered is about having _a fucking panic attack,
hyperventilating, feeling like you 're having a heart attack and you're about
to die_.

Panic/anxiety attacks are not a silly little thing. They were portrayed
somewhat accurately in Netflix's recent Jessica Jones (she even uses a common
grounding tactic to prevent them, like street names from childhood), and in
Love and Mercy, that biopic of the Beach Boys' frontman. Having had close
experiences with people who have panic attacks and see them getting triggered
by being reminded of certain incidents, I can tell you that panic attacks are
not fun, and those suffering from them are not faking, nor are they being
whiners. With time, it's possible to get over your triggers, but it's a long
healing process. During healing, trigger warnings are the same courtesy as
signs saying that people with heart conditions or expectant mothers shouldn't
get on certain carnival rides.

But people now on the internet say stupid shit like "triggered much?" for what
was once called "u mad bro?" And whether exaggerated or not, it seems that
this kind of "triggering" is what UofC seems to be speaking out against.
That's not what a trigger warning is for.

~~~
wyager
Even if a meaningful percentage of the people clamoring for trigger warnings
had a legitimate psychological condition like PTSD (which, based on my
interactions with such people at a large university, they don't), making
everyone else accommodate their emotional state is not a rational, mature
approach. If you have a problem, seek to treat it; don't try to foist it on
everyone else.

~~~
aninhumer
Whether it's a rational approach depends on how costly the change is to make,
and how much it helps.

Banning people discussing certain topics in public throughout a university is
obviously too costly. Adding a brief note at the start of an
article/lecture/etc. saying you're going to be discussing something is perhaps
not.

------
stephenitis
Safe spaces and banned trigger words creates the tendency for people to silo
themselves in a echo chamber of their own ideas. This manifests itself later
on in our population in the form of filtering friends and news who dissent
against their opinion.

The rise of these recent techniques of protest are more a failure of our high
schools and universities to provide sufficient visibility and importance to
debate and discussion.

~~~
zamalek
> silo themselves in a echo chamber of their own ideas

An immutable mind is a weak mind. If you have to silence your opponent in
order to win, you really haven't done research. Both of these are at odds with
the concept of an institute of _learning._

------
jackcosgrove
There's a subtle point that's getting overshadowed by the lightning rod
discussions about trigger warnings and safe spaces.

The U of C is explicitly stating in this letter that if you don't agree with
their values, don't come to the school.

This seems uncontroversial to me, but I think it's worth affirming that self-
segregation is a valid social strategy. I know segregation is a loaded word,
but that's because historically it was caught up in the exercise of power
differentials.

Robert Putnam concluded
([http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...](http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/))
that diverse societies actually see a decline in civic life because there is
more friction and distrust between individuals with different values. So there
is such a thing as too much diversity, and diversity must be balanced with
cohesion.

Moreover, diversity seen as social mixing is self-defeating since after enough
social mixing everyone is the same and there is no more diversity. There is a
happy medium whereby people can be tolerant and different at the same time.
Indeed, tolerance and difference need each other to exist.

Segregation is abused when there is an exercise of a power differential,
whether between individuals or groups.

So I'll strike the balance by saying, "You have the right to segregate
yourself from others and hold exclusionary values as long as you do not use
force to impose those values on others."

If you disagree with this statement, I'd ask you to examine how many ways you
segregate yourself from others. Do you befriend anyone? Do you date anyone? Do
you work with or hire anyone? Everyone engages in this behavior because we are
social animals and shared values are necessary for society.

In the long term perhaps human society will become universally shared, at
which point many of these controversies will be moot. However that is not the
case now so we should allow communities of like-minded individuals to form and
share values that differ from the values of others. Indeed we should always
allow this, because there will always be minorities no matter how homogeneous
the dominant culture is.

~~~
splouk
Well put.

------
seibelj
Some 18 year olds fight in wars and die. Other 18 year olds cry and throw
tantrums when someone says a word that they don't like hearing. The world we
live in!

~~~
comex
As it happens, veterans as a group have a high incidence of PTSD, which is
what trigger warnings are supposed to be about.

~~~
6nf
I'm not aware of any veterans with PTSD ever asking for trigger warnings
though.

~~~
nkrisc
That doesn't mean they can't benefit from it.

------
chias
> "When you read something that makes you angry, stop for a moment and answer
> two questions: who wants you to be angry, and why?"

Something my father once told me, that has served me well over the years.

There's a lot of money (read: clicks) to be made by manufacturing outrage, and
there's far too much to be angry about in this world to be inventing any more
of it. Maybe this is something you should be angry about, maybe it isn't. But
unless you like being mad you owe it to yourself to think about those
questions before making a decision.

For this thing in particular, it doesn't make any sense without context. I'm
not at the University of Chicago, and nor is anybody I know. Are "sjw pc
trigger-warningers" a problem there? Or is the university being ridiculous? We
can argue back and forth forever whether "safe spaces" are good or not
depending on your definition -- which definition is the one that is relevant
at the University of Chicago? This letter may make perfect sense in the
context of current issues going on at the university. Or it may be a load of
bull. But, at least from where I'm sitting, I have no context. And whoever
uploaded this didn't provide any. What was their purpose? Who knows.
Definitely not enough justification for me to worsen my mood about it.

------
rdtsc
I remember someone a while back posted a lecture page from CMU. They support
Trigger Warnings. And a few papers there had them.

It was a database course, I can only imagine "master/slave" terminology.

So I was wondering, how are Trigger Warning supposed to work? Can the student
refuse to do the required reading and claim full credit because might be
triggered, seems like it would open loophole.

That was just CS stuff. What about history, that's full of prejudiced
offensive language and terminology. Can students avoid doing required work by
claiming they'd be triggered?

Is there anyone undertaking an effort to sanitize records to "fix" the
triggers. For example take some classic distributed system papers and search
and replace master/slave with leader/follower?

I can understand wanting to have safe spaces. But I don't quite follow how
trigger warnings resolve themselves in the context of classroom learning. Any
recent grads have any experience with how this is handled?

EDIT: I think it was a link like this (even perhaps this exact course, just
for last year).

[http://15721.courses.cs.cmu.edu/spring2016/schedule.html](http://15721.courses.cs.cmu.edu/spring2016/schedule.html)

\---

Concurrency Control III — Optimistic /!\

...

/!\ : Trigger warning: The material presented in this lecture uses explicit
language and discusses certain situations in database management systems that
may be triggering to some students.

\---

Are students allowed to pass without learning and being tested on Optimistic
Concurrency Control in databases? If not, what is the purpose of the warning,
just to have them mentally prepare for it?

~~~
vertex-four
Allowing people to ensure that they're in a mental state to handle a topic
before they handle it is reasonably important. Mind, in the case of
master/slave, the term "trigger warning" is likely misused and a simple
statement of "these used to be the standard terms for discussing this, now
many people use leader/follower" is reasonable. Explaining historical context
to things that may be upsetting can never be a bad thing, IMHO.

~~~
ebola1717
Yeah, it seems like CMU was overzealous in how it implemented this policy
here. I would be surprised if a lot of students disagreed. It's annoying that
people bring up examples like this to dismiss the concepts entirely, because
obviously we can and should have a discussion on when they're useful.

------
Swizec
This is a really hard topic to think about.

On the one hand, I worry that we're moving towards a mind-police driven
society where we actively discourage people from saying anything that goes
against the grain of society. Be it by activist groups, or algorithms
optimizing for clicks and user retention.

On the other hand, it is important to be courteous to each other and not upset
people needlessly. Discussions should give people the option to bud out and
not participate, if they feel they cannot do so.

On the third hand, maybe we've always lived in a society where we actively
discourage participation by anyone who is perceived as upsetting the group and
nothing new is happening.

Then again, I think people should be actively encouraged to entertain stances
and opinions other than their own. Being upset and offended can often be a
good thing.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
On the _third_ hand? Now you've triggered my alien phobia!

Seriously, though, reasonable people should behave reasonably, and a lot of
the problems go away. But we aren't talking about reasonable people; we're
talking about college kids. I remember myself as I was then, and I was a jerk.
I was much more concerned with winning (in whatever form) than being
reasonable or nice or considerate. So... yeah, the administration probably
needs some guidelines rather than relying on the reasonableness of the
students.

I said "needs some guidelines", but that isn't actually what Chicago is doing
here. They're stating that they follow some values, and that you shouldn't go
there if you can't go along with those values. This is a better approach,
because values are actually a better guide than rules (somebody can always
find a set of circumstances that the rules don't cover, especially if they
want to).

~~~
jackcosgrove
Good point about values being better than rules. Values are also a much more
inexpensive way to observe norms than rules, in addition to being more
effective.

------
sergiotapia
Safe spaces used to mean "say anything you want, face no judgement."

Now it means, "don't say anything that might offend someone."

------
mathattack
This seems like a good way to define what makes the school different. If you
like this, go there. If you don't like it, you can go somewhere that does have
trigger warnings and safe spaces.

------
danso
I'm teaching a journalism class this fall in which I've made David Simon's
"Homicide" a required book. It's a terrific book overall, but I chose it
because of its examination of the system as a whole. But as you can imagine, a
book that involves following the Baltimore homicide department around
unavoidably gets pretty grisly, even with Simon's treatment of it (that is, in
the way The Wire is quite possibly one of the most boring shows ever about
police work, while being also the best show on TV ever). There's lots of
details about murders and rapes (the central event involves the rape and
murder of a child).

That said, it is a journalism class, and students who actually become
journalists should expect to report on such traumas on a fairly regular basis.
So I don't feel that concerned about using the book for journalism class. I'll
probably warn students not to read the chapter about autopsies while eating.
If I were in another liberal arts/humanities departments, I might take pause
(but I have no idea what it's like to be an instructor in any other
departments, so don't take my opinion as having any insight to other
departments or their proclivities)

------
pklausler
Bad move, Chicago. If the kids don't learn how to use trigger warnings and
safe spaces at school, how will they know how to use all of the trigger
warnings and safe spaces in the real modern world after they graduate?

~~~
ebola1717
Speech in real life is way more limited than in college. You can say things
you'd be fired for, be a total asshole, say racist things, and get a slap on
the wrist in college.

~~~
pklausler
There is a world outside the workplace.

~~~
vertex-four
And, weirdly enough, you can also generally choose who you interact with
outside the workplace. If you don't want to hang out with people who refuse to
stop smoking weed around you when asked? Fine. If you don't want to hang out
with people who refuse to stop talking about rape around you? Also fine! Just
want to be told when there's likely to be something uncomfortable coming up?
Yup, you have a right to hang out with people who respect you enough to do
that.

------
aeturnum
I have never understood the discomfort around trigger warnings. Society has
used them forever in areas that are considered sensitive. When the news warns
you they're going to show graphic footage or that a story involves sex - those
are trigger warnings. It's simply displaying common minimum level of empathy
for the experiences of others.

Safe spaces are more complicated and (inherently) restrictive and so I
understand the discomfort around those too. You can allow controversial /
awful groups to exist (Nazis, KKK, etc) and provide trigger warnings for their
events. Indeed, I would think that having 'opposition' groups and hosts
provide their own sets of trigger warnings would be a fantastic introduction
to outsiders.

------
PhasmaFelis
There seems to be whole lot of slippery-slope happening in this thread. Asking
people to respect trigger warnings for the most common types of PTSD
(generally, rape/sexual abuse) does not lead inevitably to banning everything
that anyone has every been uncomfortable with. This is about _reasonable_
accommodation.

Consider the example of disability laws: you're required to install a
wheelchair ramp/lift if an employee needs it; you're not required to let a
quadraplegic person be a lifeguard.

~~~
qntty
If we coddle people in wheelchairs, they'll never learn to wheel themselves up
stairs. In the real world, there are stairs everywhere and they need to get
used to that. I sprained my ankle one time in college and I crutched my way up
the stairs just like everyone else. Why can't they do the same?

~~~
ythl
Except mental handicaps are not as well understood as physical handicaps.
Trying to accommodate every single mental handicap in society is futile and
expensive.

~~~
qntty
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man."

------
qwertyuiop924
As someone who has difficulty listening to many subjects (I am extremely prone
to depression) I still think this is a good move: If you have difficulty with
a topic, pretending it doesn't exist won't help you.

------
mox1
Am I missing something, or doesn't safe space just = Library / Dorm room ?

Maybe add some headphones so you can't hear anything....

~~~
zyxley
In practice, it basically means "club room where people who don't like the
club aren't allowed in".

~~~
beachstartup
more like "club room where people who _aren 't liked by the club_ aren't
allowed in"

~~~
zyxley
Yes, that's usually the complaint that people who don't like safe spaces add.
It always seems to me like the people who trumpet that loudest easily fit into
the "don't like the club" category, though.

~~~
kazagistar
That is not a counterargument, it is an ad hominem.

------
brantg
U Chicago's letter is essentially a single, all-encompassing trigger warning
to the incoming freshmen.

------
louprado
My concern with all the attention given to college based safe spaces, trigger
warnings, rape culture, social justice, weed culture, athletic program
scandals, etc. is that practical minded children from working poor families
will just assume college is an alcohol-fueled summer camp for rich kids and
jocks that doesn't teach real world skills.

That's what I thought at 16 after seeing Animal House and having never visited
a college campus. Fortunately someone insisted engineering is a practical
degree that I should consider. But had that person not influenced me, I would
have just went to Apex Tech which gives you a box of tools and a "diploma" in
6 weeks.

------
cpeterso
The University also seeks to eliminate so-called 'spoiler warnings'.

54 percent of students said the climate on campus prevents some people from
saying what they believe because they are fearful of looking like assholes.

~~~
tellah
Where did you find that? I've been trying to find any data from the campus
climate surveys, but most links are just about who participated.

~~~
noddingham
That's not what the quote said, nor the context of it, the parent was trying
to equate 'offending others' as 'being an asshole'.

The actual quote is "54 percent of students said the climate on campus
prevents some people from saying what they believe because they are fearful of
offending others."

~~~
tellah
Oh lol, it was in this article. I had already read a couple sources and was
just looking at comments. I thought actual data had been released from the
climate survey that the school did this spring.

------
scotty79
When an irrational reaction to common stimuli stopped being a concern of only
the person afflicted and their doctor?

------
PhasmaFelis
I'm not clear why people on both sides of the debate seem to be interpreting
"trigger warnings" as "no triggers allowed." It's meant to be exactly what it
sounds like, a advance warning of upcoming content, so that vulnerable people
can take appropriate action. That doesn't mean that such content should be
forbidden, or that sexual assault victims should get credit for a course that
they didn't attend; just that they can prepare themselves mentally, and decide
in advance if that credit is worth the pain and discomfort it may cause.

I've had to help a friend having a sobbing panic attack because someone made a
stupid rape joke and triggered her PTSD. It's not a laughing matter. But it's
not an excuse for censorship, either.

~~~
wyager
The emotionally healthy approach is to try and deal with stress disorders, not
to shield everyone from every possible stressor.

------
michaelbuddy
Brilliant move on the part of the University. This is actual intelligent PR
during the current pathetic climate of what is making headlines at
Universities nowadays.

People want to go to a university to grow. Growth is not retreat. Strength is
not capitulation. Employees want to know that a graduate has a mental
resilience along with the skillsets learned.

------
aethertron
Are there any proposed metadata schemes for including trigger-warning-like
info in, say, web pages?

------
Waterluvian
We just need a large enough group to make a fuss over blockages of discourse
being a trigger for them. And that they need safe spaces where they can openly
communicate without fear imposed on them of possibly triggering someone else.

------
jamesash
Post WWII, an entire generation of soldiers who had seen some of the most
horrific scenes of war entered university on the GI Bill and made it through
their education without trigger warnings.

The students at the U of C will be fine.

------
cmdrfred
What I find rather interesting, is that throughout human history we never had
a need for trigger warnings until now. We've had slavery, 2 world wars,
famine, countless horrors inflicted on a countless number of people. Nobody
asks for it.

Then I look to the third world there we have things like female genital
mutilation, are the women who had that horror put upon them concerned with
trigger warnings? Nope. Not as far as I can tell.

Why here, why now? Are modern first world citizens mentally weaker somehow? I
posit that it these types of policies may do more harm than good long term.

~~~
qntty
Well the US has had obscenity laws in place until recently. It's just that the
people who decided what was "upsetting" were politicians rather than students
and had the power to get rid of it completely.

~~~
cmdrfred
In practice those laws rarely if ever were applied to college classroom or
similar event. Speech within a private facility by individuals has always been
protected.

~~~
qntty
Well yeah, but if a book can never get published because of obscenity laws, it
will never be discussed in a classroom. The law doesn't even need to be
actually enforced very often to have an effect. The fact that authors know
that their books might be labeled as obscene will make them censor themselves.

------
mankash666
How did universities evolve from spaces meant to evoke controversial and
provocative thought (like the birth of the free speech movement at UC
Berkeley) to the "safe spaces" of today? If a university is meant to enrich
you, one worthy lesson is the ability to "agree to disagree in a cordial
fashion". If you disagree or feel threatened by a line of thought, make your
voice heard. Receding into a safe space won't prepare you for the real world.

~~~
weberc2
I'm guessing it started in the 90s when progressive social scientists edged
out political dissenters from their departments, and began pushing their
political orthodoxy as "science" to an already left-leaning campus who ate it
up (confirmation bias and whatnot).

------
gragas
I'm not sure why that video clip was included in this article.

I expected the girl in the video to make a clear argument for or against
trigger warnings and safe spaces, or at the very least provide a overview of
the situation and how trigger warnings have affected her. In the end, it just
seems to be an almost completely unrelated video about a common traumatic
event.

I don't, in any way, mean to downplay the atrocities of rape and the
unfortunate case of the girl in the video. But it is ultimately an appeal to
pity and does not really present an argument. Triggering was hardly mentioned.

------
davidf18
At a time when many prestigious private schools had Jewish quotas for students
and faculty, the U of C did not.

There should never be bans of free speech consistent with that of the First
Amendment (i.e, you can't shout "Fire" in a movie theater).

I hope that there is a law passed that universities that block free speech as
many have, are not allowed to receive federal funds in the form government
grants for faculty, and financial aid for students.

~~~
x1798DE
> There should never be bans of free speech consistent with that of the First
> Amendment (i.e, you can't shout "Fire" in a movie theater).

Freedom of speech and the First Amendment are two different things (and I'll
note that there is _no_ limiting clause in the first amendment), and I think
it would be helpful if people realized this. Freedom of speech is a broader
principle that is (IMO) a good idea independent of any legal enshrinement of
the law.

~~~
davidf18
I'm not certain, but I think there was a Supreme Court ruling that said you
can't shout, "Fire" in a movie theater as an action of free speech or the
First Amendment.

At any rate, people pay good tuition money to get an education and part of an
education is the free exchange of ideas.

~~~
x1798DE
Yes, the Supreme court has given many "passes" to the government to regulate
your free speech, but what I was saying is that it's important to separate the
concept of "free speech" from the legal institutions that attempt to prevent
their restriction (by the government). There are many situations where it is
legally allowed for someone to curtail your freedom of speech, and that is
independent of whether or not it is a good idea for that person to exercise
their right to do so.

------
joesmo
I think this should be a requirement for any university that wants
accreditation and certainly all state-run institutions. This is a bold
statement not for the Uni. of Chicago, but for every other university that
does not have a similar policy in place. Sorry, but you _cannot_ get a proper
education with trigger warnings and safe spaces. Therefore, those institutions
that do not have the courage to stand up for _education_ should lose their
accreditation. Until we start holding institutions and individuals responsible
for their actions, however, this will not happen, and holding institutions and
individuals responsible for their actions is not something that, at least in
the US, we know how to do well or at all.

~~~
norea-armozel
So student associations shouldn't be allowed to not allow certain people into
their meetings if they're found to be abusive? Because that's the point of a
safe space if you didn't know. It's not unlike support groups who can and will
eject people who are known to be abusive or otherwise disclose information
outside the support group without permission of all members. So, to say that
safe spaces shouldn't be allowed is a bit questionable because people take
safe space to mean the entire university campus and annexes rather than
private spaces of student associations, sororities, and fraternities. And as
for trigger warnings, I think they too have a place at least in terms of
notifying students if certain topics will be discussed in the class. If that's
too much to ask as well then I'm glad I'm not going to the University of
Chicago.

~~~
secabeen
No, because the statement expressly says "freedom of expression does not mean
the freedom to harass or threaten others."

~~~
gcoda
Not really, your freedom ends when you diminishing someone else freedom.
Harassing and threatening do not make people less free. Even Mozart was
considered offensive some times, some people was triggered and described his
music as immoral . So, freedom of expression should be without any
restriction, except when it stepping on freedom of other people.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
But that's a different topic. "You can say anything you want" is different
from "you can say anything you want _in our meeting_ ".

Saying that Mozart can compose anything he wants is different from saying that
the symphony _has_ to play it, and that I _have_ to go.

~~~
gcoda
Yes, but in education, this is dangerous way. Whole point of science is to
critique, if you are triggered by facts, and university bans "hostile" ideas
you can not even discuss it. There is a place and time, but you should have a
right to oppose creationism, for example. At least you should be not afraid to
ask questions or state facts. And if everything is safe space, and everybody
is triggered this is totally oppose to scientific principles and contradicts
whole point of education.

edit: "you can say anything you want in our meeting" in practical terms, if
there is a meeting about wage gap, you should be able to state facts that
contradicts narrative, and not be afraid that you will be force to apologize
for trigerring or even quit university

------
dang
"Please don't use uppercase for emphasis."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
jordigh
Fixed, but I really did want to yell.

~~~
dang
Understood, and thanks. Since it's no longer relevant I've detached this
subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12361418](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12361418)
and marked it off-topic.

------
zyxley
The "so called" part of the announcement feels like it's meant to be
particularly patronizing. "You rassafrassin youngsters, with your so-called
rap music and trigger warnings!"

~~~
Erik816
It is meant to be a nod to the intellectual bankruptcy of the entire concept
of safe spaces and trigger warnings. Taken to their logical conclusion, these
policies would lead to a gutting of the entire premise of a liberal education,
which is what the University of Chicago has always sought to provide (source:
proud alumnus, particularly today). You simply cannot protect people from
ideas they disagree with while also fostering vigorous intellectual debate and
growth.

~~~
gregd
There is a difference between safe spaces meant to coddle ignorant privileged
white kids from having to hear ideas they've never heard before, and safe
spaces as a refuge for marginalized students who need a break from racist,
classist, bigoted, body shaming, heteronormative, colonial, hegemonic
treatment from others on campus. There is a difference between privileged
white kids demanding trigger warnings for topics that call out their privilege
and a rape survivor needing a trigger warning so they don't have to watch a
rape scene in an assigned movie and have a PTSD flashback and nightmares for 2
nights in a row.

~~~
nikcheerla
Any pertinent examples of "privileged white kids demanding trigger warnings
for topics that call out their privilege?" I've never heard of an incident
where conservative kids on campus demanded that a progressive speaker's event
be canceled – all of the incidents I've seen in the news have been the other
way around. (Of course, the news does tend to have its own narratives it wants
to push ...)

------
kaonashi
Old man yells at cloud.

------
panglott
They don't want students to have any spaces where they feel safe/accepted?
That's weird.

~~~
spriggan3
> They don't want students to have any spaces where they feel safe/accepted?
> That's weird.

Why would a student need a special space to feel safe/accepted? Doesn't the
university already provide students basic safety?

~~~
sp332
No, students get harassed and raped at a pretty high rate. And suicide is the
#2 cause of death among young adults. Physical security and "acceptance" is a
big public health issue.

~~~
djrogers
thays just not true - the rate of rape and sexual assault is lower for college
students (at 6.1 per 1,000) than for non-students (7.6 per 1,000).

[1] [http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/14/campus-
rape...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/14/campus-rape-uva-
crisis-rolling-stone-politics-column/20397277/)

~~~
panglott
The Instapundit is attempting to debunk public-health assessments of the
incidence of sexual assault with crime-report data, when a key argument of
anti-rape activists is that rape/sexual assault largely goes unreported. And
given the way that women are treated who make allegations of domestic
violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, I would not be surprised if
that is correct.

~~~
sp332
The study cited in that link (which I link directly below) says 20% of
students who admitted to being raped said they reported it to police, compared
to 32% of non-students.

------
ebola1717
This statement by the University is willfully ignorant. The University
provides an officially sanctioned LGBTQ Safe Space
([https://lgbtq.uchicago.edu/page/safe-
space](https://lgbtq.uchicago.edu/page/safe-space)). Clearly the University
isn't ensuring that people who think gay people are evil are also represented
in those safe spaces. Furthermore, some ideas are clearly off limits. The
University is not going to allow and promote legitimate arguments about
whether the Holocaust was justified, or whether we should return to slavery
and colonialism.

The point of contention is and always has been which spaces, why, and for what
reasons. The University is clearly not ignorant of the nuances of this debate,
and if it wanted to commit itself to rigorous debate, it could do so while
respecting that there is a valid rigorous debate to be had about this policy.

~~~
jotux
>Furthermore, some ideas are clearly off limits. The University is not going
to allow and promote legitimate arguments about whether the Holocaust was
justified, or whether we should return to slavery and colonialism.

Why are certain topics off limits? If someone wants to give a talk about why
they believe the Holocaust is justified they should be free to do so, just as
I am free to ignore it or go argue he's wrong.

~~~
ebola1717
Please show me an accredited University that has done that. This is not a view
any university shares, for good reason.

~~~
jackcosgrove
Not exactly the same, but Northwestern U has an avowed Holocaust denier on its
faculty who is protected by tenure.

Institutions matter more than shared values sometimes.

~~~
ebola1717
Contingent on the fact that: "Butz has made clear that his opinions are his
own and at no time has he discussed those views in class or made them part of
his class curriculum." If he were to represent his opinions as the views of
the University, or in the classroom, they would remove him.

To me, that seems not only consistent with the principle of a "safe space,"
but the definition of it.

NU also supports safe spaces: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-
create-inclus...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-create-
inclusive-campus-communities-first-create-safe-
places/2016/01/15/069f3a66-bb94-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html)

