
Too many academics are now censoring themselves (2016) - cs2733
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/oct/11/censor-lecturers-trigger-warnings-students-distressed
======
indeyets
Sometimes I think that that colleges and universities should accept students
after they sign consent (kinda like medical consent): I understand that
classes take sensitive subjects and i Agree that being exposed to information
about disturbing historical circumstances is necessary for learning and
graduating

~~~
Yetanfou
I don't know whether they're signing any consent documents but from what I've
heard this is what the university of Chicago is doing - make clear to
prospective students that a university is a place to learn and be challenged,
not a 'safe space', not a 'home away from home'.

~~~
eesmith
Odd then that there's a U. Chicago Safe Spaces program -
[https://inclusion.uchicago.edu/lgbtq-student-life/ways-to-
ge...](https://inclusion.uchicago.edu/lgbtq-student-life/ways-to-get-
involved/safe-space/) .

Here's a quote, from
[https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9601](https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9601)
:

> “At the University of Chicago, we insist that all faculty and students are
> free to debate, disagree, and argue, without fear of being silenced,” Dean
> of Students Dr. John (Jay) Ellison wrote in a letter welcoming incoming
> freshmen to campus.

You'll read the 2021 letter doesn't use the term "safe space", unlike in 2020
(where quoting [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/university-chicago-
we...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/university-chicago-we-don-t-
condone-safe-spaces-or-trigger-n637721) ):

> Ellison wrote, "we do not support so-called 'trigger warnings,' we do not
> cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and
> we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where
> individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own."

See, the thing is, a "safe space" isn't about "retreat[ing] from ideas and
perspectives at odds with their own", it's about giving people a place to
speak out ' _without fear of being silenced_ '.

That misunderstanding may have lead to the removal of "safe spaces" from this
year's letter.

------
allarm
> Sadly, far too many academics have responded to the pressure to protect
> students from disturbing ideas by censoring themselves.

“Protecting” students from “disturbing” ideas is an act of censorship in the
first place. The choices for academics who don’t agree with this censorship
are simple - to quit their job or to secure themselves by not covering some
topics. Or probably to be fired (and publicly lashed) for standing their
ground - as we have seen has happened many times already.

The whole situation is a total disaster and absolute disgrace for the modern
educational system. Being traumatized is a part of being human. It’s a part of
a life of an adult. It is a good thing, if one gets these traumas in a
precise, measured and indirect way - from books and lectures. It’s a process
of education. If those students are not ready for that, maybe they made a
mistake to become students in the first place?

------
IfOnlyYouKnew
Note that this is about trigger warnings, and therefore teaching more than
research.

It also hasn't really aged well. I remember this criticism was far more
prominent a few years back, including on HN.

What happened since? Trigger warning were renamed "CN", for "content note", I
believe. We also got ourselves some actual problems, so nobody cares about
these things anymore.

Popular perception of these warnings also became less scandalised with their
increasing popularity: first, because people note that the abundance of "CNs"
they come across mean precisely the opposite of what was feared: it's a sign
that people aren't censoring themselves, but instead using a commonly accepted
practice to mitigate any possible negative effects _without_ the need to self-
censor.

And here's the second misunderstanding: "CNs" aren't really meant to make
people leave the room or not read the book, and the examples from these
articles were pretty rare back then and are almost unheard of now.

 _They are, instead, an acknowledgement that I, the speaker, realise that this
may be a sensitive topic for you. By flagging this up-front, I show that
harming you is not my intention, and that I will be supportive if any issue
arises._

This understanding defuses the situation. Because it's not usually texts about
the Holocaust that are traumatising for jews. It's people using those texts
and that history to hurt them anew.

------
cs2733
There is a growing trend of censorship and self-censorship. Far from enjoying
controversy for its own sake, it seems clear to me that open, civilized debate
is healthy and indeed essencial.

The attitude that "some things are not to be discussed/mentioned" is akin to
religious dogma, more at home in the European Dark Ages than the 21st century.

