The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

University of Chicago officials say professors still can provide trigger warnings and safe spaces if they choose, and they promise a lot more discussion when students arrive on campus and classes begin at the end of next month.

This is the important part, from my perspective. The university isn't demanding that professors not use trigger warnings; it's really just a declaration that trigger warnings/safe spaces will not be classroom policy, thereby liberating professors from undue punishment if a student happens to react poorly to assigned material or discussion content.

I've seen resistance to this, mainly accusing the university of manipulating its authority, or of appeasing its conservative donors, both of which are plausible. But as the NPR piece specifies, several professors seem to be on board with the letter, which suggests it isn't entirely bureaucratic.

I also think the promise of "more discussion" once the semester starts is a great way to invite students into an environment of intellectual discourse. We shouldn't let the disagreement over trigger warnings frame the discussion; rather, the disagreement itself should become a topic of discussion. In other words, the very fact that trigger warnings and safe spaces have become a serious concern in our society should be available as a topic of discourse, not a fear that dictates what can or can't be discussed.

Teachers should be attuned to the dynamics of their classroom, but this doesn't mean content should be restricted. Teachers who avoid certain content aren't only catering to the delicacies of their student body - they're also dismissing their responsibility as educators. To me, UChicago's policy allows teachers educational freedom while also dedicating its support to faculty who decide not to censor their course's content.

 

[Dak]

"Discussion" from students is at least as likely to be limited to empty chants and waving dildos around as it is anything remotely productive.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'd still prefer censorship to be a topic of discussion, rather than a) a policy that dictates discussion, or b) a presumed nonissue.

It's also better to get students at least thinking about certain things even if they don't deliver in the classroom.

 

[Dak]

I'd still prefer censorship to be a topic of discussion, rather than a) a policy that dictates discussion, or b) a presumed nonissue.

It's also better to get students at least thinking about certain things even if they don't deliver in the classroom.

Re-(and accurately)-framing safe spaces and trigger warnings as "censorship" is liable to just get you an airhorn in the face from certain student subpopulations.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's true - but in that case, the proper course of action for the educator would be to ask them why they think it isn't censorship. Or if they think censorship is actually preferable, in some cases...? And if this doesn't constitute a slippery slope...?

If students are passionate, you can squeeze more out of them than even they might realize.

 

[Dak]

That's true - but in that case, the proper course of action for the educator would be to ask them why they think it isn't censorship. Or if they think censorship is actually preferable, in some cases...? And if this doesn't constitute a slippery slope...?

If students are passionate, you can squeeze more out of them than even they might realize.

I remember pushing that point with Mort and he agreed that censorship is good, as long as he agrees with it. There's no slippery slope because "they're the good guys ldo". I think you will find this perspective across the political landscape.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I plan on this coming up for me in my class this fall. We're reading plenty of racially charged and violent fiction, so I imagine I'll be providing my own version of trigger warnings.

Which, to clarify, emphasize to my students that content is not an excuse to avoid the work; but it can definitely be food for committed, even passionate, discussion in class.

 

[CiG]

So let the rest of the class debate-rape them until they either learn or leave.

To me the most important part was that the college will not be banning controversial speakers, because before now the progressive left were being ridiculous.

 

[rms]

http://theundefeated.com/features/the-courage-of-colin-kaepernick/

Nationalism is the uncritical celebration of one’s nation regardless of its moral or political virtue. It is summarized in the saying, “My country right or wrong.” If one has a problem with America, one is told to lump it or leave it, or to find another country that works better.

 

[Dak]

I apologize for my eyerolls about Kaep's history of oppression. His days in the NFL as an overpaid 1 trick wonder were reaching an end, so he tried to make himself too troublesome of a release - and sabatoge his team cohesion in the process. Whataguy.

 

[rms]

Find it interesting that he's arguing what the exact definition of nationalism and patriotism is but says "hey the flag can mean whatever it wants" -- but this is a rather lackluster article anyways.

The best part that no one seemed to pick up on was Kaep's leftist-no responsibility for anything. He doesn't even blame cops for being 'trigger happy' or whatever, he is upset that it takes longer to be a cosmetologist than a police officer. Bernie bro's, man.

 

[CiG]

That lesbian soccer player jumping on the wagon too.

 

[arg]

Ted Cruz kicking ass

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'd have voted for Ted Cruz if he won the primary, even if he does pander to fundies. I love that man's autistic focus on details and ability to make everyone hate him.

 

[EternalMetal]

He didnt particularly admit that the testimony of a refugee was the only basis of acceptance, he was just saying that it was a strong factor. I would have to play the contrarian in this case; the testimony of why someone wants to immigrate should be considered, because hearing the reason why someone wants to immigrate is definitely important to the majority of innocent refugees. The real issue is that distinguishing real and manufactured testimonials seems to be impossibly difficult, and it is evident that the terror organizations are able to account for our lax security measures in other areas. Denying refugees is akin to caving to terrorist threats, but on the other hand if we do nothing we will be allowing Isis agents to enter our country. Lets just assume that the majority of refugees were innocent. Denying them immigration would then be an act of injustice.

I still say fuck'em, current citizens have the right for their communities not to be potentially infiltrated by Isis agents. The refugee situation is sad, but quite frankly we shouldnt have to threaten our national security because of people from another country. I do not wish for the US to become a martyr in the name of social justice. Innocent American lives > refugee lives. Good on Cruz for attempting to put a wrench in the process.

 

[arg]

I say fuck em, truthful or not, innocent or not. It takes a deliberate and purposeful action to put them on planes and bring them here. We don't have to! If we simply DO NOTHING, we eliminate both the financial burden and the terrorist threat!

 

[tagradh]

Whatacunt.

 

[Baroque]

I'm all for immigration but given we are at war with some of them (by their own claim) and they will not reveal which ones, that's entirely different. You don't just let enemies walk into your home. If there are thorough background checks of each one, fine.

 

[arg]

I would also require that they be able to buy/rent their own fucking home and support themselves right from the start. Or be 100% paid for by a private sponsor the entire time until they can.

But again why bring refugees in at all? There's a guaranteed huge cost whether they're terrorists or not. Any benefits they could bring would be provided by somebody else, most likely an American citizen of a low income minority group from whom they would've stolen jobs.

 

[Einherjar86]

Immigrants don't "steal" jobs. They offer employers an option to pay someone for the same amount of work at a lower cost. That isn't theft of any fucking kind.

Businesses love immigrants because they provide labor at a lower cost to the employer. There are problems with this scenario, but stop referring to it as theft.