Hacker News Reader

Comment by pavlov | Hacker News Reader

Ovid’s “Metamorphoses” is a fixture of Lit Hum, but like so many texts in the Western canon, it contains triggering and offensive material that marginalizes student identities in the classroom. These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background.

Wow. That reads like something the Party in 1984 would use to justify its censorship:

"The Ministry of Truth works tirelessly to protect the oppressed from narratives of exclusion and oppression."

Is it really like this in American universities these days? I'm stunned.

View on HN

Your comparison is hyperbolic for two reasons.

First, most universities are NOT censoring content or attaching warnings to texts. Period. This is obvious from the article.

Second, there's a difference between warnings and censorship. A few student groups are asking for warnings -- mostly about graphic accounts of rape in texts assigned in required courses -- not changes to the curriculum. Again, this is obvious and explicit in the article. And student groups can ask for whatever they want.

So, no. Even taking this article on face value, "this" (whatever this is) is not how "American universities "really are these days". And it's not even what student activists are asking for, by and large.

PS: Even if it were "this way", it's unclear to me what political movement such non-censorship is supporting. It's basically young rape victims asking to be warned when a lecture/reading is going to contain descriptions of rape. I'm not saying it's a good policy option, but excuse me if I roll my eyes when you compare it to a powerful tool of political oppression. Even the author of this opinion piece doesn't go that far. He basically just says "yeah there are jerks out there who are gonna make rape jokes, so you better grow a thick skin."

It's basically young rape victims asking to be warned when a lecture/reading is going to contain descriptions of rape.

Is that really a reasonable request in a literature class? Does the same apply to any traumatic event and any field of study -- for example, if a medical student was robbed at knifepoint, should he be given advance warning about seeing blood or cut skin...?

The quoted passage specifically mentions "people of color or students from a low-income background" in addition to survivors. How is that meant to be interpreted? What kind of writing do poor students need to be protected against?

I'm getting off the topic, but my friends that referee high-level children's sports were talking about how taunting rules and trash talk have changed over the years. In the past decade or two, they're really tried to stamp out racial and sexual trash talk. Now they're encouraged to watch out for trash talk regarding economic class. The reasoning is two-fold. First, kids are getting smarter. If you call someone a racial slur you get kicked out of the league, but maybe you can tell them their mother's on welfare or their dad is an illegal immigrant. Second, children's sports are so much about money. High-level children's sports are pay-to-play. Top-tier club teams in many sports can cost $10k/year or more. The fact that there are any lower-income kids in the leagues at all is kind of surprising. Usually the less talented, richer kids are subsidizing a handful of more talented poorer kids. Some kids will do whatever it takes to get an edge or maybe even get the other teams best player to throw a punch and get kicked out.

My point was that comparing warnings with Orwellian censorship is hyperbolic.

The first question you ask is already covered well in other discussion threads.

The second question I don't have an answer to. But that's the problem with trying to have productive conversations about a broad statement from a student group instead of discussing current and proposed concrete policies/policy proposals. In general, unless there's a concrete policy proposal on the table, we should tend to assume the best of people and avoid conjuring up Orwellian nightmares out of vague statements.

(I just accidentally downvoted you. Sorry.)

The article mangles two concepts:

1) Trigger Warnings

2) Safe Spaces

Both of these are being misused in some universities. Providing a warning to vulnerable people so that they can keep themself safe is fair enough. But some people point to the safe space policy and suggest that the trigger warning is not sufficient and that the material should not be taught.

Depending on the university, it's been like this for quite some time. I remember pro-War protesters at my university being censured for "violating university speech code" back in 2001. We were allowed time off from our classes to protest going to war--even allowing professors to cancel classes--but any attempts to distribute pamphlets or discuss the opposing opinion was actively shut down. I've since completely changed my opinion on the war, but that doesn't change my opinion that they should have been allowed to voice their opinion.

Later, in a slightly unrelated event, the university was successfully sued to remove the speech code from the code of conduct: https://www.thefire.org/cases/shippensburg-university-speech...

<strike>IIRC, that particular case was about religion-oriented groups on campus, where a Christian organization that didn't allow Muslim members was banned, even though there was also a Muslim organization that didn't allow Christians that was allowed to remain. I didn't particulary care for the idea that any group should be allowed to ban anyone from membership or attendance for any reason--I would have preferred to see all orgs made to accept all students--but the same speech code was at the heart of blocking the pro-war protests, so it seemed like a net good.</strike>

EDIT: sorry, it was about the "free-speech zones" the university had created for anyone not related to the anti-war protests. The particular area they chose was specifically out of site from the areas the anti-war rallies were held.

This article likens warnings to censoring. While "triggered" is commonly misused by a large number of people, it did stem from people who suffer PTSD like symptoms from traumatic events.

Giving such people a way to prepare themselves for these types of events, or recuse themselves if absolutely necessary, shouldn't be considered the same as censorship.

Yeah, I find the backlash really confusing - I've genuinely never encountered anyone using content warnings as a suggestion that the text in question should be censored.

I think the underlying issue goes beyond a simple warning at the top of an assignment containing triggering material. It's more so about the implications of deeming something as "triggering" and how that classification can affect the rest of the course/materials/students beyond the offended party.

Also there are implications for the professors and the future courses they'd choose to offer in this situation. Maybe we won't have courses on the Greek classics in a few years because the risk vs reward for the people electing to teach those courses.

These both strike me as extraordinarily unlikely outcomes.

Please don't generalize one dude's experience / article to all of America's universities. Plenty of professors across plenty of fields enjoy "triggering" student's visceral reactions to shocking events, new ideas, and homeworkian brutality. And the majority of students walk away from these experience with having opened their eyes and learned something without having to feel she was triggered and made to feel unsafe reading a 1000+ year old book in a classroom with plenty of adult supervision....

As for us, folks who are not in an American college for whatever reason (graduated, not in the US, underaged, etc.), judging the American university from sensationalist articles from the media to be a hotbed for either overarching protectionism or flagrant rapey patriarchy is just jumping to conclusions on our part.

>> These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background.

> Is it really like this in American universities these days? I'm stunned.

Please remain stunned. Yes, there are actually teachers out there who care about how their students/audiences feel and experience as a result of choices made in the syllabus.

Please remain stunned for confusing, intentionally, a trigger warning with book burning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com