While I do understand the value for trigger warnings and safe spaces, and find U of Chicago's statement to be roughly as bad as the problems that we've seen with rampant SJW handwringing, this comic is making statements that aren't true. Students are welcome to peacefully protest anything that the University does, and in fact the statement never says anything about protests. In fact, the letter encourages debate and discussion, specifically ASKING for students to protest and start a dialogue int hose instances.
The problem with the letter is specifically about the third point in the comic. That without safe spaces and trigger warnings being used properly to protect at-risk student populations, we end up with some portion of the student body being unable to participate meaningfully in their collegiate experience. It's too bad the comic buries that under two examples of hyperbole that have nothing to do with the facts.
I think the first two points are valid as well. Daring to object to a speaker/policy/teacher/curriculum will be dismissed and minimized. Trying to organize a group to reform these issues could be seen as censoring (against the University Policy) and blocked.
That's a bit of an assumption. In fact, the letter specifically encourages objections and debate, so if the University attempts to stifle such objections, then the students should throw the words of the letter back in the University's face.
The last decade or so counters your point. These concerns are raised daily, and discussed constantly, on college campuses now. The problem is that campuses often refuse to make changes, instead encouraging "debate" that they have no intention of turning into policy.
They are raised and discussed because there are places where people can gather to address these concerns without fear of backlash, develop strategies, and then move to tactically address the issues. Without the minority student unions and women's corners and safe spaces, these become much harder to codify and are much more likely to get shut down before they can get ready.
Above all, where is the harm in allowing areas where women, minorities, or others can meet and be relieved of the pressure from the mainstream? Heck, even conservatives have made Young Republican and Conservative Student Unions and Bible Clubs and whatnot to survive the pressure of the mainstream on more liberal campuses.
I agree on the need for safe spaces and for trigger warnings, but you and I are not going to agree that their absence will prevent protests on a college campus. In short, I'm guessing we're about 80% in agreement. :)
I think having a place where your idea, which might not be popular with the mainstream, can get discussed and refined by people who have an interest in the subject, is fundamental to any kind of movement. And that by "defending free speech", the UoC is actually backing mainstream.
There's no question that this letter was driven by a desire to pander to the status quo. But it is important to be truthful about what the letter says and what it does not say.
It says that trigger warnings and safe spaces are not allowed. That is entirely a reactionary stance against changes that they see on other campuses. And it's designed to be a dog-whistle to parents who share these reactionary values.
It says that they will not cancel speakers based on their ideological positions. Personally, I'm ok with this, as a college campus should be about hearing multiple voices, ESPECIALLY those that are flawed so that their flaws can be examined and brought to light. Preventing speakers on campus because someone is offended is childish and counterproductive to the education process.
It does NOT say, nor does the recent history of UofC indicate, that protests will be disallowed, or that students will not be allowed to make their opinions of the speaker known in the public spaces on campus. If the campus does crack down on such protests, then they are doing so in opposition to the stated purpose of the letter, which is to encourage dissent and debate. Now, I'm not saying that the UofC won't actually crack down in this way, but that if they do, they will be intentionally violating the stated reasoning behind the letter itself.
So, the letter is about maintaining the status quo and preventing changes on campus, but it also opens a door for students to openly and peacefully protest on campus, and the administration will be unable to stop them without becoming public hypocrites. Because of this, the comic is not only wrong about the facts of the letter, but trying to drum up hatred for the UofC that is based on falsehood and hyperbole.
If that was what the comic was showing, I'd never have commented. The comic presents a scenario in which the University is specifically censoring protests and shutting them down.
In short, you are correct, but what you're correct about isn't what the comic says.
Safe spaces are a useful tool... just as long as we don't try to make every space into a safe space (especially as safe spaces typically need to be qualified with who they are safe for)
That people are so averse to trigger warnings is bizarre given how quickly people approve of spoiler warnings. If you can see why it's polite to engage in the latter, then it ought not be hard to imagine why it might be good to do the former too (and why neither are a free speech issue).
Having trigger warnings forcibly acknowledges that some ideas and concepts are so bad that they Should be monitored. That calls out the modern rape and other abuse culture, and points at it as wrong. The people who grew up with them as being kosher don't want to recognize that they have done things that made them abusive to others. Much like the judges calling athletic rapists Just good boys who made a mistake. Calling them rapists marks them as bad. Odds are those judges have themselves at some point taken away someones bodily autonomy, and don't want to feel bad about it.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2016-08-31 01:44 pm (UTC)The problem with the letter is specifically about the third point in the comic. That without safe spaces and trigger warnings being used properly to protect at-risk student populations, we end up with some portion of the student body being unable to participate meaningfully in their collegiate experience. It's too bad the comic buries that under two examples of hyperbole that have nothing to do with the facts.
no subject
Date: 2016-08-31 03:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-08-31 04:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-08-31 05:47 pm (UTC)We won't even go into the sociological pressure to comply to the mainstream (ie, point 1).
no subject
Date: 2016-08-31 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-08-31 10:30 pm (UTC)Without the minority student unions and women's corners and safe spaces, these become much harder to codify and are much more likely to get shut down before they can get ready.
Above all, where is the harm in allowing areas where women, minorities, or others can meet and be relieved of the pressure from the mainstream? Heck, even conservatives have made Young Republican and Conservative Student Unions and Bible Clubs and whatnot to survive the pressure of the mainstream on more liberal campuses.
no subject
Date: 2016-08-31 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-08-31 10:44 pm (UTC)I think having a place where your idea, which might not be popular with the mainstream, can get discussed and refined by people who have an interest in the subject, is fundamental to any kind of movement. And that by "defending free speech", the UoC is actually backing mainstream.
no subject
Date: 2016-08-31 10:56 pm (UTC)It says that trigger warnings and safe spaces are not allowed. That is entirely a reactionary stance against changes that they see on other campuses. And it's designed to be a dog-whistle to parents who share these reactionary values.
It says that they will not cancel speakers based on their ideological positions. Personally, I'm ok with this, as a college campus should be about hearing multiple voices, ESPECIALLY those that are flawed so that their flaws can be examined and brought to light. Preventing speakers on campus because someone is offended is childish and counterproductive to the education process.
It does NOT say, nor does the recent history of UofC indicate, that protests will be disallowed, or that students will not be allowed to make their opinions of the speaker known in the public spaces on campus. If the campus does crack down on such protests, then they are doing so in opposition to the stated purpose of the letter, which is to encourage dissent and debate. Now, I'm not saying that the UofC won't actually crack down in this way, but that if they do, they will be intentionally violating the stated reasoning behind the letter itself.
So, the letter is about maintaining the status quo and preventing changes on campus, but it also opens a door for students to openly and peacefully protest on campus, and the administration will be unable to stop them without becoming public hypocrites. Because of this, the comic is not only wrong about the facts of the letter, but trying to drum up hatred for the UofC that is based on falsehood and hyperbole.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-01 02:17 am (UTC)I suppose you think the Texas laws that "didn't" outlaw abortion were kosher too?
no subject
Date: 2016-09-01 03:00 am (UTC)In short, you are correct, but what you're correct about isn't what the comic says.
no subject
Date: 2016-09-01 05:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-09-01 11:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-08-31 04:42 pm (UTC)That people are so averse to trigger warnings is bizarre given how quickly people approve of spoiler warnings. If you can see why it's polite to engage in the latter, then it ought not be hard to imagine why it might be good to do the former too (and why neither are a free speech issue).
no subject
Date: 2016-09-02 06:10 am (UTC)