Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
Hit & Run : Reason.com: The University of Chicago's statement to incoming students decrying trigger warnings, safe spaces, and speaker dis-invitations generated much praise from supporters of free expression on campus—but also significant criticism from those who say trigger warnings just aren't that big of a deal.
13 comments:
Kimberly McSweeney
said...
I am not one to want avoidance of “hard” topics in discussion – in fact I encourage it. However, I also believe in the ideology that institutions should protect and ensure the comfort and, most importantly, inform their students and other such patrons of subject matters that could be jarring to the average individual.
I take many classes in the gender studies persuasion in which the students take on the hard topics with great interest, not looking to exploit experiences of others, but to get to the root of the problem that has caused these horrible experiences and therefore how to keep them from happening in the future. My professors in these classes have been anywhere from extremely unapologetic to very uncomfortable with subject matter involving topics of rape, abuse, disenfranchisement, and many others.
Whether or not the institution enforces these ‘trigger warnings’ couldn’t matter less to me. I believe that institutions should be hiring professionals who are emotionally capable of taking care of and establishing a comfortable environment in which students can learn.
I still don’t understand why everyone is so upset over the idea of trigger warnings. To me, it’s not even a debate. It isn’t actually harming anyone to add a trigger. It’s not barring said content from being discussed/used. So why are some people so opposed? Is the fact that you’re about to discuss assault a secret? Are you trying to surprise your class with gory images? It’s ridiculous to assume that the thirty seconds it takes for you to issue a trigger is more important than the comfort and mental health of the people in your class. I’m with Drexel (and all of those other schools) on this one. Trigger warnings on topics like sexual assault, extreme violence, severely derogatory language, etc. should be required. U Chicago’s letter was highly insensitive and the exact opposite of how an institution should go about handling the concerns of its students. If people are concerned that their ‘free speech’ is being impeded upon by these trigger warnings, they should really consider what exactly they are trying to say then.
A lot of people confuse the use of trigger warnings with the idea of censorship. The UChicago letter, as an example, suggests that triggers warnings are against the university's “commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression.” They fear that trigger warnings will discourage open discussions and make people “retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.” However, UChicago is misunderstanding the purpose of trigger warnings completely. Trigger warnings exist because a community acknowledges the various backgrounds and experiences of our community members and we want to make sure that they — ALL of them -- feel safe and included. Trigger warnings are “warnings,” which means that they are not intended to silence anyone or ban controversial materials; they just want to give a heads-up for certain groups of people so that they wouldn’t be surprised and get hurt. Instead of censoring free expression, the use of trigger warnings in fact fosters free expression, because it allows a community to be diverse and inclusive, where people are aware and respectful of each other’s perspectives. — Joyce
I agree with the above commenters. Just because you announce possible trigger warnings before talking about a subject doesn't mean you can’t talk about that subject. It just allows people who might be brought back to a traumatic memory the time and forewarning to either make accommodations to not be in class that day (or know in advance during say, registration, that maybe they shouldn’t be in that class) or for them to have the time to mentally prepare to talk about their trigger. Just because you have a trigger doesn't mean that you never want to talk about it, it just also means that you don't want to be surprised by it. Teachers that don’t want to announce possible triggers in their class before hand really don't understand what triggers are or why it’s not stopping them from teaching about a subject. It’s kind of like how in classes that might have gore like biology dissections or first-aid classes will tell the students before they advance the slide or watch the video to look away or leave the room if they hate see that kind of thing. The problem is that gross things like that are known “triggers” for years because people throw up or faint, but triggers that the article talks about are newer with the fact that it might bother people just as much as the gore.
I agree with the other comments that there’s really no reason not to have trigger warnings. It takes barely any time to make one and its not like the professor is say “here’s this issue that has been blacklisted and we can’t talk about.” They’re literally just warning people that might be affected about what is coming. Like Monica said its really no different than in bio teachers warning people when dissections are coming up. No one calls that censorship and the only difference between that and the kind of material that trigger warnings normally apply to is that the effects of some one being affected by dissections and the like are obvious since they normally involve fainting and throwing up. Where as with the things that are normally brought up in the context of trigger warnings its far more internal and easier to miss from the outside (I would imagine).
I think the perception and, at times, the application of trigger warnings has been blown severely out of proportion from what they should be. Trigger warnings should simply be statements at the beginning of a discussion or class forewarning students about disturbing subject matter that may be touched on. They do not and should not hinder discussion or be a way of censoring difficult material. In fact, I would argue that trigger warnings can enhance the quality of discussion surrounding certain topics. In a discussion about rape and rape culture for example, I think it would be invaluable to have survivors and people who actually have had personal experiences connected to rape to join in. However, those people will not participate unless they can feel certain that they are discussing it in a safe space with people who will respect them and what they have gone through. Trigger warnings go a long way towards creating such an environment. If the University of Chicago wants to do away with trigger warnings and therefore exclude most people who might have real, personal, and often traumatic connections to the subject at hand, they are going to end up with a room full of straight, white men blithely discussing the difficult problems of the world and the hypotheticals of horrible situations that they have never been exposed to.
I think that what trigger warnings actually are is often not addressed and therefore misunderstood by the general public. Trigger warnings are basically just a statement before starting a discussion of a certain topic so those it might effect can have time to brace themselves or leave the room. I would liken it to the warnings that come up before a tv show starts, letting the audience know if there is violence or swearing within that episode, giving them time to gauge if watching that episode is the right thing for them. It is not the censorship or the lessening of free speech, and it is definitely not the fragility of the millennial. I think that trigger warnings are a good thing and should be standardized across the university system. To those trigger warnings benefit, it causes them to feel more comfortable within their learning environment, as well as giving everyone the ability to strive for their full potential. This is what college is really about, isn't it?
Man, all this talk about trigger warnings is really triggering me right now. College campus environments by and large are already so sequestered from viewpoints and opinions outside a narrow spectrum relative to the world at large. Trigger warnings are just the latest mechanism to silence voices of disagreement and go hand in hand with similar methods such as disinviting potential campus speakers or discouraging “microaggressions”. I applaud the University of Chicago for fighting back against a seemingly inexorable shift in national collegiate policy towards coddling their student body. Come on, does anybody truly believe that trigger warnings will be issued diligently in the real world, as you go about your business. Especially in Entertainment, where some of the people you will be working with or supervising are certain to be a little “rough around the edges”. It is almost as if these students need to move about the world with full block ear protection in order to function without hearing some “damaging” words. Just because you are offended, does not mean everybody is offended. Likewise, perhaps the bar for limiting speech should be closer to preventing the latter, than the former.
I have mixed opinions on trigger warnings. While I understand their benefit I think they can be detrimental to learning and growth. Being a straight white male there are not many things that are personally offensive to me (to an extent). I feel a need to post that disclaimer since there are people that are more often in delicate situations than I, and I can’t fully understand that. However, my white privilege and I will continue. I feel as though trigger warnings exaggerate a bubble. My friends school had a diversity talk where a theater troupe went onstage and did skits of horribly offensive situations. A lot of people walked out crying in the middle of the program and their were weeks of campus wide discussions and apologies from the school. The issue I see with banning this type of exposure is it makes those of us who aren’t in certain ugly situations often unaware of what goes on. A lot of people don’t know what it feels like to have a racial slur used on them, had their gender identity held against them, or, one I can relate to, seen a swastika etched on a bus. Protection is important, but so is exposure and coming face to face with an issue.
Let's try this again and include my name this time.
I agree with the other comments that there’s really no reason not to have trigger warnings. It takes barely any time to make one and its not like the professor is say “here’s this issue that has been blacklisted and we can’t talk about.” They’re literally just warning people that might be affected about what is coming. Like Monica said its really no different than in bio teachers warning people when dissections are coming up. No one calls that censorship and the only difference between that and the kind of material that trigger warnings normally apply to is that the effects of some one being affected by dissections and the like are obvious since they normally involve fainting and throwing up. Where as with the things that are normally brought up in the context of trigger warnings its far more internal and easier to miss from the outside (I would imagine).
I always find myself torn on this topic. I *am* concerned that policies like trigger warnings and safe spaces are fostering a broad definition of personal injury and heightened sensitivity to controversial material and thought. I think trigger warnings are an excellent idea, but I have personally seen several occasions when the spirit of the idea was stretched to the point that conversations were ended before they began. I think canceling speakers is unacceptable. I support trigger warnings and even safe spaces (though there must be other spaces, too,) but the thinking behind them does sometimes escalate to the point of stifling intellectual exchange.
Having said that, I don’t know what its like to be in a minority population (as a woman, I experience sexism on a frustratingly regular basis, but I don’t personally feel like I’ve been materially disadvantaged) or be a survivor and have been bombarded by both blatant and subversive violence my whole life. Perhaps we should just listen and accept that if they say this is necessary, then it is. I think UChicago’s letter and the thinking behind it is irresponsible, reactionary, and likely indicative of deeper institutional problems. They are dismissing the desires of their minority populations totally out of hand. It completely ignores the complexity of the issue and they are essentially doing the very thing they accuse trigger warnings of… ending the conversation before it begins.
I was at first very confused by the title of this article, because most of the critics of the letter sent out by U-Chicago Dean of Students John Ellison say that trigger warnings are important. People who are making a big deal out of, or playing down the importance of trigger warnings, are both missing the point—just on the high or low side of the issue. This article was somewhat head-in-the-sand missing the point as well. This isn’t very surprising seeing as this article came from an author who praised U-Chicago when the university first sent its embarrassingly-lazy and out-of-touch letter to freshmen. What people need to understand, regardless of where they side on the issue, is that a letter from the Dean of Students, sent to incoming freshmen, is not the place to use two paragraphs to discuss the topics of trigger-warnings, safe-spaces, and campus-speaker invitations. As a matter of fact, Ellison’s original letter seems to conflate these issues.
For a university to say that they don’t allow trigger warnings, or safe spaces, is actually more of an attack on free speech than the opposite. Trigger warnings and safe spaces help to facilitate learning, and it’s a shame that people are attacking them in the name of free speech. U-Chicago is actually working onb policies on how to “handle” students who protest speakers brought to campus. How is that facilitating free speech? If you want to bring any speaker to campus, sure, but you better be ready to facilitate discussion. You can't just invite speakers and be like "well OK, open discussion." It's not a left v. right issue. It's a point-counter-point issue, which takes more effort but is essential if we want students to actually be better armed for dealing with issues than our country currently is.
I am enough of a free thinker and subversive to be angry at the trigger warning movement on its face, but when I think about it, I just feel disappointed. Regardless of how taboo Social Darwinism is as a topic (#triggered), I am inclined to agree that it does exist, and may not be a terrible thing. Many of those in favor of trigger warnings really seem to want the statement “the better you are the better you do” to not be true. Regardless of any of our moral obligations to censor people or not, is it effective? Does providing people with safe spaces help them grow? If it does, what is it helping them to grow into? The concept of a safe space seems to assume that we have a cohesive internally consistent moral structure that can thrive in incubation chambers shielded from everything bad outside, how could that be true? And how could it ever be condoned to exist in a place meant to push people to do more, to make them learn?
13 comments:
I am not one to want avoidance of “hard” topics in discussion – in fact I encourage it. However, I also believe in the ideology that institutions should protect and ensure the comfort and, most importantly, inform their students and other such patrons of subject matters that could be jarring to the average individual.
I take many classes in the gender studies persuasion in which the students take on the hard topics with great interest, not looking to exploit experiences of others, but to get to the root of the problem that has caused these horrible experiences and therefore how to keep them from happening in the future. My professors in these classes have been anywhere from extremely unapologetic to very uncomfortable with subject matter involving topics of rape, abuse, disenfranchisement, and many others.
Whether or not the institution enforces these ‘trigger warnings’ couldn’t matter less to me. I believe that institutions should be hiring professionals who are emotionally capable of taking care of and establishing a comfortable environment in which students can learn.
I still don’t understand why everyone is so upset over the idea of trigger warnings. To me, it’s not even a debate. It isn’t actually harming anyone to add a trigger. It’s not barring said content from being discussed/used. So why are some people so opposed? Is the fact that you’re about to discuss assault a secret? Are you trying to surprise your class with gory images? It’s ridiculous to assume that the thirty seconds it takes for you to issue a trigger is more important than the comfort and mental health of the people in your class. I’m with Drexel (and all of those other schools) on this one. Trigger warnings on topics like sexual assault, extreme violence, severely derogatory language, etc. should be required. U Chicago’s letter was highly insensitive and the exact opposite of how an institution should go about handling the concerns of its students. If people are concerned that their ‘free speech’ is being impeded upon by these trigger warnings, they should really consider what exactly they are trying to say then.
A lot of people confuse the use of trigger warnings with the idea of censorship. The UChicago letter, as an example, suggests that triggers warnings are against the university's “commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression.” They fear that trigger warnings will discourage open discussions and make people “retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.” However, UChicago is misunderstanding the purpose of trigger warnings completely.
Trigger warnings exist because a community acknowledges the various backgrounds and experiences of our community members and we want to make sure that they — ALL of them -- feel safe and included. Trigger warnings are “warnings,” which means that they are not intended to silence anyone or ban controversial materials; they just want to give a heads-up for certain groups of people so that they wouldn’t be surprised and get hurt. Instead of censoring free expression, the use of trigger warnings in fact fosters free expression, because it allows a community to be diverse and inclusive, where people are aware and respectful of each other’s perspectives.
— Joyce
I agree with the above commenters. Just because you announce possible trigger warnings before talking about a subject doesn't mean you can’t talk about that subject. It just allows people who might be brought back to a traumatic memory the time and forewarning to either make accommodations to not be in class that day (or know in advance during say, registration, that maybe they shouldn’t be in that class) or for them to have the time to mentally prepare to talk about their trigger. Just because you have a trigger doesn't mean that you never want to talk about it, it just also means that you don't want to be surprised by it. Teachers that don’t want to announce possible triggers in their class before hand really don't understand what triggers are or why it’s not stopping them from teaching about a subject. It’s kind of like how in classes that might have gore like biology dissections or first-aid classes will tell the students before they advance the slide or watch the video to look away or leave the room if they hate see that kind of thing. The problem is that gross things like that are known “triggers” for years because people throw up or faint, but triggers that the article talks about are newer with the fact that it might bother people just as much as the gore.
I agree with the other comments that there’s really no reason not to have trigger warnings. It takes barely any time to make one and its not like the professor is say “here’s this issue that has been blacklisted and we can’t talk about.” They’re literally just warning people that might be affected about what is coming. Like Monica said its really no different than in bio teachers warning people when dissections are coming up. No one calls that censorship and the only difference between that and the kind of material that trigger warnings normally apply to is that the effects of some one being affected by dissections and the like are obvious since they normally involve fainting and throwing up. Where as with the things that are normally brought up in the context of trigger warnings its far more internal and easier to miss from the outside (I would imagine).
I think the perception and, at times, the application of trigger warnings has been blown severely out of proportion from what they should be. Trigger warnings should simply be statements at the beginning of a discussion or class forewarning students about disturbing subject matter that may be touched on. They do not and should not hinder discussion or be a way of censoring difficult material. In fact, I would argue that trigger warnings can enhance the quality of discussion surrounding certain topics. In a discussion about rape and rape culture for example, I think it would be invaluable to have survivors and people who actually have had personal experiences connected to rape to join in. However, those people will not participate unless they can feel certain that they are discussing it in a safe space with people who will respect them and what they have gone through. Trigger warnings go a long way towards creating such an environment. If the University of Chicago wants to do away with trigger warnings and therefore exclude most people who might have real, personal, and often traumatic connections to the subject at hand, they are going to end up with a room full of straight, white men blithely discussing the difficult problems of the world and the hypotheticals of horrible situations that they have never been exposed to.
I think that what trigger warnings actually are is often not addressed and therefore misunderstood by the general public. Trigger warnings are basically just a statement before starting a discussion of a certain topic so those it might effect can have time to brace themselves or leave the room. I would liken it to the warnings that come up before a tv show starts, letting the audience know if there is violence or swearing within that episode, giving them time to gauge if watching that episode is the right thing for them. It is not the censorship or the lessening of free speech, and it is definitely not the fragility of the millennial. I think that trigger warnings are a good thing and should be standardized across the university system. To those trigger warnings benefit, it causes them to feel more comfortable within their learning environment, as well as giving everyone the ability to strive for their full potential. This is what college is really about, isn't it?
Man, all this talk about trigger warnings is really triggering me right now. College campus environments by and large are already so sequestered from viewpoints and opinions outside a narrow spectrum relative to the world at large. Trigger warnings are just the latest mechanism to silence voices of disagreement and go hand in hand with similar methods such as disinviting potential campus speakers or discouraging “microaggressions”. I applaud the University of Chicago for fighting back against a seemingly inexorable shift in national collegiate policy towards coddling their student body. Come on, does anybody truly believe that trigger warnings will be issued diligently in the real world, as you go about your business. Especially in Entertainment, where some of the people you will be working with or supervising are certain to be a little “rough around the edges”. It is almost as if these students need to move about the world with full block ear protection in order to function without hearing some “damaging” words. Just because you are offended, does not mean everybody is offended. Likewise, perhaps the bar for limiting speech should be closer to preventing the latter, than the former.
I have mixed opinions on trigger warnings. While I understand their benefit I think they can be detrimental to learning and growth. Being a straight white male there are not many things that are personally offensive to me (to an extent). I feel a need to post that disclaimer since there are people that are more often in delicate situations than I, and I can’t fully understand that. However, my white privilege and I will continue. I feel as though trigger warnings exaggerate a bubble. My friends school had a diversity talk where a theater troupe went onstage and did skits of horribly offensive situations. A lot of people walked out crying in the middle of the program and their were weeks of campus wide discussions and apologies from the school. The issue I see with banning this type of exposure is it makes those of us who aren’t in certain ugly situations often unaware of what goes on. A lot of people don’t know what it feels like to have a racial slur used on them, had their gender identity held against them, or, one I can relate to, seen a swastika etched on a bus. Protection is important, but so is exposure and coming face to face with an issue.
Let's try this again and include my name this time.
I agree with the other comments that there’s really no reason not to have trigger warnings. It takes barely any time to make one and its not like the professor is say “here’s this issue that has been blacklisted and we can’t talk about.” They’re literally just warning people that might be affected about what is coming. Like Monica said its really no different than in bio teachers warning people when dissections are coming up. No one calls that censorship and the only difference between that and the kind of material that trigger warnings normally apply to is that the effects of some one being affected by dissections and the like are obvious since they normally involve fainting and throwing up. Where as with the things that are normally brought up in the context of trigger warnings its far more internal and easier to miss from the outside (I would imagine).
I always find myself torn on this topic. I *am* concerned that policies like trigger warnings and safe spaces are fostering a broad definition of personal injury and heightened sensitivity to controversial material and thought. I think trigger warnings are an excellent idea, but I have personally seen several occasions when the spirit of the idea was stretched to the point that conversations were ended before they began. I think canceling speakers is unacceptable. I support trigger warnings and even safe spaces (though there must be other spaces, too,) but the thinking behind them does sometimes escalate to the point of stifling intellectual exchange.
Having said that, I don’t know what its like to be in a minority population (as a woman, I experience sexism on a frustratingly regular basis, but I don’t personally feel like I’ve been materially disadvantaged) or be a survivor and have been bombarded by both blatant and subversive violence my whole life. Perhaps we should just listen and accept that if they say this is necessary, then it is. I think UChicago’s letter and the thinking behind it is irresponsible, reactionary, and likely indicative of deeper institutional problems. They are dismissing the desires of their minority populations totally out of hand. It completely ignores the complexity of the issue and they are essentially doing the very thing they accuse trigger warnings of… ending the conversation before it begins.
I was at first very confused by the title of this article, because most of the critics of the letter sent out by U-Chicago Dean of Students John Ellison say that trigger warnings are important. People who are making a big deal out of, or playing down the importance of trigger warnings, are both missing the point—just on the high or low side of the issue. This article was somewhat head-in-the-sand missing the point as well. This isn’t very surprising seeing as this article came from an author who praised U-Chicago when the university first sent its embarrassingly-lazy and out-of-touch letter to freshmen. What people need to understand, regardless of where they side on the issue, is that a letter from the Dean of Students, sent to incoming freshmen, is not the place to use two paragraphs to discuss the topics of trigger-warnings, safe-spaces, and campus-speaker invitations. As a matter of fact, Ellison’s original letter seems to conflate these issues.
For a university to say that they don’t allow trigger warnings, or safe spaces, is actually more of an attack on free speech than the opposite. Trigger warnings and safe spaces help to facilitate learning, and it’s a shame that people are attacking them in the name of free speech. U-Chicago is actually working onb policies on how to “handle” students who protest speakers brought to campus. How is that facilitating free speech? If you want to bring any speaker to campus, sure, but you better be ready to facilitate discussion. You can't just invite speakers and be like "well OK, open discussion." It's not a left v. right issue. It's a point-counter-point issue, which takes more effort but is essential if we want students to actually be better armed for dealing with issues than our country currently is.
I am enough of a free thinker and subversive to be angry at the trigger warning movement on its face, but when I think about it, I just feel disappointed. Regardless of how taboo Social Darwinism is as a topic (#triggered), I am inclined to agree that it does exist, and may not be a terrible thing. Many of those in favor of trigger warnings really seem to want the statement “the better you are the better you do” to not be true. Regardless of any of our moral obligations to censor people or not, is it effective? Does providing people with safe spaces help them grow? If it does, what is it helping them to grow into? The concept of a safe space seems to assume that we have a cohesive internally consistent moral structure that can thrive in incubation chambers shielded from everything bad outside, how could that be true? And how could it ever be condoned to exist in a place meant to push people to do more, to make them learn?
Post a Comment