Rave: University of Chicago

The forum for ranting, raving, complaining and praising
Post Reply
User avatar
stlouie_lipp
Hallelujah Brother
Posts: 13409
Joined: April 17 06, 7:36 pm

Re: Rave: University of Chicago

Post by stlouie_lipp »

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The upside to all this is that these are the people who I will be competing against in the marketplace.
Universities across the nation are striving to help students cope with the stress of Election Day, such as offering tips on managing anxieties and events to help absorb election results.
........

And a note posted on Facebook by the University of Iowa’s Counseling Service lets students know the center “is here for you should you need to process through your experience of the presidential election.” The center also linked to an article that offers “Six Ways To Manage Election Stress With Mindfulness.”
........

Similarly, the University of Washington Counseling Center posted an article on “how to cope if your candidate loses on Election Day,” linking to a USA Today article headlined: “A 12-step plan for what to do if your candidate loses on Election Day.”
........

“It is important to have it on campus, so they know they are in a safe space and can say how they feel about the process and let it be kind of an open forum,” Erick Jenkins, a student vote everywhere ambassador at the CSLE, told the East Carolinian campus newspaper.

Allegheny College is hosting two post-Election Day decompression events for faculty and students “who wish to process the election in an open and welcoming space.”
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29824/

User avatar
JL21
NPR & THT Contributor
Posts: 36130
Joined: April 18 06, 7:44 am
Location: Chocolate City

Re: Rave: University of Chicago

Post by JL21 »

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Can someone help me understand safe spaces a little better? Reading through here, they are a place where you retreat(for lack of a better word) when you are exposed to speech or situations that are damaging because of your past poor experiences(e.g. homophobia, sexual assault, racism, etc). They are by nature private so that people can't intentionally disrupt the experience for those using them, but also not a solo experience(hence why 'your room' isn't sufficient). That sounds good to me. It also sounds almost exactly like using a therapist or counselor. Universities can and do offer those types of services(and there's definitely room to do more and talk about if that's a good idea), so my question is twofold:

1) Why are there separate terminology and distinctions? To be honest, I have the similar reaction to hearing safe spaces and trigger warnings as I do to phrases like social justice warrior being used as a pejorative. In the abstract there's nothing wrong with the feelings behind them, but the terminology used has largely been co-opted by a group that doesn't really understand or correctly apply those feelings to the situations they encounter. Maybe that's just not being very close to this type of thing(I won't claim to have my finger on the pulse), but college aged students as a whole aren't always great about practicality or realism either(see Mizzou and CS1950 for a great example of a terrific cause represented in a very poor way).

2) Why does this topic frequently come up with regards to actual activities on campus? Maybe I'm just re-stating heyzeus here, but the whole first amendment analogy seems pretty spot on. There are probably times where that type of binary approach falls apart(like debates on Nazis doing parades in certain towns), but to go back to the first question, every time I've seen it come up in practice it hasn't been that type of situation

All of that is not to endorse the U of Chicago people, it certainly sounds like their heads aren't in the right place. I'm less concerned about this particular instance and more curious about the larger trend.
Apologies that this answer is 2 months later than the question, but I recently heard an interesting lecture from some professors specifically about these topics (I work with college professors, FWIW, specifically professors whose goal is to advance teaching methods). I can't answer everything you've addressed, but I'll do my best to address what I can.

-First of all, the U. of Chicago thing was limited. The people who made the statement did so without the university's approval and I'm sure the higher-ups at the university were pissed. There's also a joke amongst higher ed about U. of Chicago. I believe it's commonly known as "Where fun goes to die." So it's not at all surprising that someone affiliated with U. of Chicago would make this sort of stand.

-Second, the general consensus about all of this is that it's not even really much of a thing. That the majority of this is button-pushing by the media or other outlets to create an issue that really doesn't exist to much degree on college campuses in reality. In a room full of professors, they one by one said that they had never had a student ask for a safe space. Which isn't to say that it doesn't exist. Just that it's not nearly as widespread as it's made out.

-Generally speaking, trigger warnings started as a means of helping students who had been in the military and may be suffering from PTSD (I work at a university that has a healthy % of ex-military in the student body). It has since expanded to include victims of sexual violence, and a few professors had stories about students who were clearly rattled by material that referenced sexual violence. But none that blamed the faculty for it or felt the need for safe spaces, trigger warnings, etc.

-The whole trigger warning thing is simply letting the class know in advance that there are sensitive materials that will be discussed. A few professors mentioned that they had used them, but they had never had a student opt out or step away from responsibilities for the material.

As for the most recent thing- posted by lipp- my hunch is that these are simply attempts being made by the institutions to appear sensitive to various issues. The climate around political discussion is so charged these days, and universities are more or less obligated to inclusion, free thought, and inoffensiveness. Anything even resembling a misstep is going to be turned into some dumb issue (when it's not), so they err on the side of caution and make a bigger production out of it than they should.

I'd also add that at least a few of the professors in my discussion specifically mentioned that they disliked the language- specifically, "safe space"- because it misrepresents the reality of what a safe space really is. It makes it sound like... well, everything that makes people angry when they hear about "safe spaces". It's not some room with padded walls where little Tiffany can be free to be offended by everything and then everyone hugs it out. I'm sure there's more to it, but the general idea (one general function of a safe space) is that it's a place where someone can speak freely when/if they feel like someone is mistreating them. The LGBTQ community in particular has had a need for these types of areas on campuses, more so in the past, but even now.

I totally understand the backlash, too. To some degree, I agree with some of the backlash against it. If nothing else, I think universities look kind of ridiculous when they publicize some of these efforts. And there are anecdotal instances of students crying offense over some really absurd things. On the other hand, I think there are several very specific communities within college campuses that benefit from the existence of these kinds of efforts. And I think it's important to remember that so much of it really is anecdotal.

My two cents. Probably the most political I care to ever be.

User avatar
Schlich
Don't tone police me bro!
Posts: 10883
Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Location: Lost in the Cloud

Re: Rave: University of Chicago

Post by Schlich »

JL21 wrote:
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Can someone help me understand safe spaces a little better? Reading through here, they are a place where you retreat(for lack of a better word) when you are exposed to speech or situations that are damaging because of your past poor experiences(e.g. homophobia, sexual assault, racism, etc). They are by nature private so that people can't intentionally disrupt the experience for those using them, but also not a solo experience(hence why 'your room' isn't sufficient). That sounds good to me. It also sounds almost exactly like using a therapist or counselor. Universities can and do offer those types of services(and there's definitely room to do more and talk about if that's a good idea), so my question is twofold:

1) Why are there separate terminology and distinctions? To be honest, I have the similar reaction to hearing safe spaces and trigger warnings as I do to phrases like social justice warrior being used as a pejorative. In the abstract there's nothing wrong with the feelings behind them, but the terminology used has largely been co-opted by a group that doesn't really understand or correctly apply those feelings to the situations they encounter. Maybe that's just not being very close to this type of thing(I won't claim to have my finger on the pulse), but college aged students as a whole aren't always great about practicality or realism either(see Mizzou and CS1950 for a great example of a terrific cause represented in a very poor way).

2) Why does this topic frequently come up with regards to actual activities on campus? Maybe I'm just re-stating heyzeus here, but the whole first amendment analogy seems pretty spot on. There are probably times where that type of binary approach falls apart(like debates on Nazis doing parades in certain towns), but to go back to the first question, every time I've seen it come up in practice it hasn't been that type of situation

All of that is not to endorse the U of Chicago people, it certainly sounds like their heads aren't in the right place. I'm less concerned about this particular instance and more curious about the larger trend.
Apologies that this answer is 2 months later than the question, but I recently heard an interesting lecture from some professors specifically about these topics (I work with college professors, FWIW, specifically professors whose goal is to advance teaching methods). I can't answer everything you've addressed, but I'll do my best to address what I can.

-First of all, the U. of Chicago thing was limited. The people who made the statement did so without the university's approval and I'm sure the higher-ups at the university were pissed. There's also a joke amongst higher ed about U. of Chicago. I believe it's commonly known as "Where fun goes to die." So it's not at all surprising that someone affiliated with U. of Chicago would make this sort of stand.

-Second, the general consensus about all of this is that it's not even really much of a thing. That the majority of this is button-pushing by the media or other outlets to create an issue that really doesn't exist to much degree on college campuses in reality. In a room full of professors, they one by one said that they had never had a student ask for a safe space. Which isn't to say that it doesn't exist. Just that it's not nearly as widespread as it's made out.

-Generally speaking, trigger warnings started as a means of helping students who had been in the military and may be suffering from PTSD (I work at a university that has a healthy % of ex-military in the student body). It has since expanded to include victims of sexual violence, and a few professors had stories about students who were clearly rattled by material that referenced sexual violence. But none that blamed the faculty for it or felt the need for safe spaces, trigger warnings, etc.

-The whole trigger warning thing is simply letting the class know in advance that there are sensitive materials that will be discussed. A few professors mentioned that they had used them, but they had never had a student opt out or step away from responsibilities for the material.

As for the most recent thing- posted by lipp- my hunch is that these are simply attempts being made by the institutions to appear sensitive to various issues. The climate around political discussion is so charged these days, and universities are more or less obligated to inclusion, free thought, and inoffensiveness. Anything even resembling a misstep is going to be turned into some dumb issue (when it's not), so they err on the side of caution and make a bigger production out of it than they should.

I'd also add that at least a few of the professors in my discussion specifically mentioned that they disliked the language- specifically, "safe space"- because it misrepresents the reality of what a safe space really is. It makes it sound like... well, everything that makes people angry when they hear about "safe spaces". It's not some room with padded walls where little Tiffany can be free to be offended by everything and then everyone hugs it out. I'm sure there's more to it, but the general idea (one general function of a safe space) is that it's a place where someone can speak freely when/if they feel like someone is mistreating them. The LGBTQ community in particular has had a need for these types of areas on campuses, more so in the past, but even now.

I totally understand the backlash, too. To some degree, I agree with some of the backlash against it. If nothing else, I think universities look kind of ridiculous when they publicize some of these efforts. And there are anecdotal instances of students crying offense over some really absurd things. On the other hand, I think there are several very specific communities within college campuses that benefit from the existence of these kinds of efforts. And I think it's important to remember that so much of it really is anecdotal.

My two cents. Probably the most political I care to ever be.
Well said.

Post Reply