How Trigger Warnings Silence Religious Students

[rug]

Practices meant to protect marginalized communities can also ostracize those who disagree with them.

ALAN LEVINOVITZ
6:30 AM ET

Last week, the University of Chicago’s dean of students sent a welcome letter to freshmen decrying trigger warnings and safe spaces—ways for students to be warned about and opt out of exposure to potentially challenging material. While some supported the school’s actions, arguing that these practices threaten free speech and the purpose of higher education, the note also led to widespread outrage, and understandably so. Considered in isolation, trigger warnings may seem straightforwardly good. Basic human decency means professors like myself should be aware of students’ traumatic experiences, and give them a heads up about course content—photographs of dead bodies, extended accounts of abuse, disordered eating, self-harm—that might trigger an anxiety attack and foreclose intellectual engagement. Similarly, it may seem silly to object to the creation of safe spaces on campus, where members of marginalized groups can count on meeting supportive conversation partners who empathize with their life experiences, and where they feel free to be themselves without the threat of judgment or censure.

In response to the letter, some have argued that the dean willfully ignored or misunderstood these intended purposes to play up a caricature of today’s college students as coddled and entitled. Safe spaces and trigger warnings pose no real threat to free speech, these critics say—that idea is just a specter conjured up by crotchety elites who fear empowered students.

Perhaps. But as a professor of religious studies, I know firsthand how debates about trigger warnings and safe spaces can have a chilling effect on classroom discussions. It’s not my free speech I’m worried about; professors generally feel confident presenting difficult or controversial material, although some may fear for their jobs after seeing other faculty members subjected to intense and public criticism. Students, on the other hand, do not have that assurance. Their ability to speak freely in the classroom is currently endangered—but not in the way some of their peers might think. Although trigger warnings and safe spaces claim to create an environment where everyone is free to speak their minds, the spirit of tolerance and respect that inspires these policies can also stifle dialogue about controversial topics, particularly race, gender, and, in my experience, religious beliefs.

Students should be free to argue their beliefs without fear of being labeled intolerant or disrespectful, whether they think certain sexual orientations are forbidden by God, life occurs at the moment of conception, or Islam is the exclusive path to salvation; and conversely, the same freedom should apply to those who believe God doesn’t care about who we have sex with, abortion is a fundamental right, or Islam is based on nothing more than superstitious nonsense. As it stands, that freedom does not exist in most academic settings, except when students’ opinions line up with what can be broadly understood as progressive political values.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/silencing-religious-students-on-campus/497951/

[anoNY42]

1. I'm not generally a fan of safe spaces

but if someone in class is gay, and another student believes that that orientation is a sin, how do you handle discussion about that as a professor? It seems insulting to have someone say you are behaving immorally merely for being yourself.

[Jim__]

2. It depends on what is meant by "trigger warnings."

Someone posted a link to the article, Hey, University of Chicago: I am an academic. I am a survivor. I use trigger warnings in my classes. Here’s why., the other day. An excerpt:

...

As a social psychologist and a professional academic in Chicago working for multiple universities on an at-will basis, academic and intellectual freedom is a value I am inclined to strongly support. I do believe that professors should feel free to express extreme viewpoints and present challenging material to their students in hopes of expanding their thinking and drawing out critical reflection. And as an instructor with my own classes, I often present material or ideas that some students may disagree with or vehemently dislike. Like many academics, I am dismayed when my colleagues are denied intellectual freedom, and are fired or otherwise punished for wearing political insignia, presenting challenging material, or espousing views some students object to. And as a researcher who studies and publishes articles on the psychology of open-mindedness and political tolerance, I am generally opposed to censorship.

Trigger warnings are none of those things.

What are trigger warnings? Trigger warnings are small advisories placed before the presentation of material that people may find acutely upsetting. Sometimes they are placed in course syllabi, prior to weeks where distressing content is discussed, or on lecture slides, before the presentation of graphic or unpleasant or otherwise triggering material. The term “trigger” is a reference to trauma triggering, an experience common to people with post-traumatic stress disorder, whereby encountering a word, person, or object that is reminiscent of trauma causes a person to experience flashbacks, physical/emotional distress, or panic.

For example, if I was sexually assaulted or raped in a 2002 Kia Sportage (I wasn’t), I might feel uneasy or panicked sitting in the back of a 2002 Kia Sportage (I don’t). If I was forced to have sex that I did not want to have (I was), I might feel incredibly unhappy, shaky, and even slightly out of touch with reality when someone near me makes a joke about rape (I do). Triggers range from the graphic (rape & murder imagery, vivid gore, etc) to the banal (I have an acquaintance who is triggered by apples, because of an abuse experience involving apples), and from the common to the exceptional. For a good example of a banal and uncommon trigger, see the infamous “Trigger Warning: Breakfast” comic published anonymously to The Nib.

more ...

It seems reasonable to me that a teacher can ask students to let her know about certain topics that may recall traumatic events for them and then let the students know if that topic is likely to come up in a particular class so that they can avoid it. If that's what trigger warnings mean, then I think they are good things. If trigger warnings mean that a student is considered out of order for raising an issue during a class because the issue may offend some students, then they are unacceptable. I've always understood them to mean the former, critics always imply they are the latter. I'm never sure exactly what we're talking about when we are talking about trigger warnings.

[Igel]

24. Or, rather, the ideas "voluntary" and "compulsory."

Voluntarily issue trigger warnings, great.

Force faculty to provide trigger warnings, sucky.

[Humanist_Activist]

3. WTF?

"Students should be free to argue their beliefs without fear of being labeled intolerant or disrespectful", OK, what the fuck is this bullshit, it sounds like he wants to create a "safe space" for bigots.

[rug]

4. Know your memes.

Other than their race and gender, what do these people have in common?

[Humanist_Activist]

6. None of those memes are relevant to my point, swing and a miss. n/t

[rug]

7. Oh, did you have an actual point?

[Humanist_Activist]

8. I was responding to the claim that religious people want to be exempt from being called bigots...

for holding bigoted beliefs. Its special pleading from special snowflakes.

Do you have an actual counter or are you just going to post more irrelevant bullshit?

[rug]

9. A claim made by whom?

[Humanist_Activist]

10. The author of the Atlantic article, don't be purposefully dense. n/t

[rug]

11. Do you think atheists should have safe spaces?

[Humanist_Activist]

12. Not sure how that is relevant, but yes, in fact, I advocate for safe spaces for...

any and all minorities that may feel marginalized by the larger culture and want to explore shared experiences with others of like mind in a safe and as non-judgemental as possible environment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028085417#post162

That's what safe spaces actually are, and how they are usually practiced, but we have a bunch of insecure white guys who feel left out so they go on the attack against a useful social tool, particularly for young people just leaving home for the first time, who perhaps need to find social support. I would say this is particularly true for LGBT people, because many of them never had such support at home, and this would be a first opportunity to explore their feelings and connect with others like them. Hence why "safe spaces" mostly started in such situations.

Then we have the new, right wing, framing, caused by misunderstanding, most of it deliberate, that purposefully misconstrues what safe spaces are for the sole purpose of destroying them because, shit, cis-gendered, straight, white males don't dominate in them most of the time. Of course, they focus on the outliers to make their point, never really bothering to examine why they exist in the first place, nor the thousands of safe spaces that are used every day that most aren't even aware exist.

[rug]

13. Do you think they can be used by antireligious people who want to be exempt from being called bigots

for holding bigoted beliefs." That they can become "special pleading from special snowflakes".

Or do you think antireligious bigots do not exist?

[Humanist_Activist]

14. He's talking about in a classroom setting, where vigorous debate should take place...

depending on topic, of course. But if you had religious students, in the classroom, expressing bigoted opinions, they should be called out on it. This isn't "chilling free speech" its countering some free speech with more free speech. This is where the special pleading comes in, no one expects a safe space in the classroom, not if you want a passing grade, that is, why should religious students be immune from criticism of their beliefs?

[rug]

15. You didn't answer the question.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. The answer is an obvious yes, but its also irrelevant, do you want to stay on topic....

or are you just being your obstructive self all over again?

[rug]

17. It's quite relevant to the OP.

Although trigger warnings and safe spaces claim to create an environment where everyone is free to speak their minds, the spirit of tolerance and respect that inspires these policies can also stifle dialogue about controversial topics, particularly race, gender, and, in my experience, religious beliefs.

Human views come in all stripes and sizes, each with a corresponding bigotry against them. That also applies to religious views and antireligious views, whether you like it or not. You cannot consistently argue against safe spaces for some and safe spaces for others.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. Classrooms aren't safe spaces! Both you and the author purposefully mischaracterize them...

to try to counter the existence of safe spaces in the first place, which are NOT in the classroom. Do I need to repeat myself yet again?

Not to mention that many religious people already have their own safe spaces set up on campuses and also a lot of them set up outside of campus, they are called churches.

The only one being inconsistent here is you, question, should religious people not have their religious views on gender, race, or sexuality challenged in the classroom?

[rug]

19. Safe spaces exist outside classrooms.

One would hope respect is in classrooms and insult outside it.

And I note your one trick pony. This is not a classroom or a safe space.

[Humanist_Activist]

20. Precisely, so what is your objection now?

Do you think the author has a point, if so, what is it?

[rug]

21. I don't have an objection. I'm trying to understand your point.

Are you for or against safe spaces?

And for whom?

[Humanist_Activist]

22. Already answered. For them, and for everybody.

More or less.

They don't extend to classroom environments, obviously, which is the source of my objection in my first post. Religious students shouldn't be given privileges that aren't extended to others in the classroom.

[rug]

23. I don't think that's his exact point, but close enough.

More or less.

[Igel]

25. You can force them into being quite.

Or you can argue with them.

In one, you're shutting down discussion and compelling silence in hopes of compelling obedience.

The world has seen a lot of that. Nearly all of it has been called "good" and "just" by those who wanted to compel obedience.

Those outside of those systems or forced to live under them (and which disagreed) often had words other than "good" and "just" for them.

Those forced into silence seldom feel comfortable. And most of those into compulsion would just as soon have those who feel uncomfortable for those reasons excluded from society, one way or another.

[Humanist_Activist]

26. But only one side is trying to silence the other in this case...

remember, this is in a classroom setting, trying to silence LGBT people and allies for calling you out as a bigot for holding bigoted beliefs isn't really excusable.

[struggle4progress]

5. There's nothing wrong with encouraging a certain sensitivity to others

Most of the classes I taught have no possible emotional content, but for a few classes I sometimes introduce some topics that could make a certain number of students very anxious and uncomfortable -- and it's important that the discussion be handled accordingly

[fishwax]

27. why should students be free to be intolerant or disrespectful "without fear of being labeled" such?

"Students should be free to argue their beliefs without fear of being labeled intolerant or disrespectful, whether they think certain sexual orientations are forbidden by God, life occurs at the moment of conception, or Islam is the exclusive path to salvation; and conversely, the same freedom should apply to those who believe God doesn’t care about who we have sex with, abortion is a fundamental right, or Islam is based on nothing more than superstitious nonsense."

Some of those positions are, in fact, intolerant. Now, I'm not saying such positions should never be allowed to be voiced in a classroom, but if one person says gay people are going to hell and another says that's intolerant, is it really the charge of intolerance that is over the line?