The New York Times reports that the University of Chicago sent out a “Welcome freshmen” letter to the Class of 2020, which will begin classes on Chicago’s South Side in about a month. These letters normally contain nothing more controversial than a “dining room schedule,” the Times noted, but this one has caused quite a stir across the country.
“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,” reads the letter from Dean of Students Jay Ellison. (Read the full letter on the university’s student newspaper.)
The Chronicle of Higher Education features a detailed explanation about trigger warnings at US colleges and universities. A “trigger warning” is advice to students that the content of certain lectures or other course material may be offensive. It gives those students who might be sensitive to the material a chance to avoid it. Beyond rape and violence, students have asked for trigger warnings about political issues and subjects like evolution, earthquakes, certain religious holidays, abortion, racism, and homophobia. And that’s just the ones I can remember.
Some supporters of the university have argued that students need to develop a thick skin and a refusal to endorse trigger warnings is exactly what’s needed. I think most students develop a thick skin about political or sensitive matters long before they get to a university, but the whole thick-skin argument misses the point completely.
The notion of free thought is a picture of the Western university at its best.
For example, a general can be invited to speak about Vietnam to students who had lost brothers or parents in that war. Students could skip the lecture if they were afraid it would overwhelm them, but they’d be responsible to get the notes from someone else. A general who served during the Vietnam War, however, would certainly provide more insight into policy about the war than any textbook ever could. And the university would be duty-bound to give him a microphone in a class about the war. Just hearing that inside viewpoint, whether students agreed or disagreed with it, would make their minds turn over and lead them to a deeper understanding of the war.
Other educational institutions ought to follow suit, and several already have. Institutions where people are supposed to learn about the world can’t squelch discourse, as if it were some corporation that wanted information put out that only painted the good aspects of the institution. Look, I read the New York Times, but I watch Fox News on TV, because rose-colored glasses that tint our view of the world don’t help us improve.
I will say, though, for very young children, sometimes the confidence that comes from hearing they’re “OK” is preferable to the discouragement or tendency to give up that would result if they were told negative information. When I’m trying to be encouraging for someone’s future, I use pedagogy; when I’m trying to figure out how the world works, I use science or reasoning.
The point is, there has to be a balance when it comes to learning by young children. This doesn’t include university students and certainly doesn’t refer to any student who’s wide-minded enough to get into the University of Chicago. I tend to draw the line, personally, sometime during high school: that’s when I think most students are mature enough to realize not everyone is as enthralled with their school as they are. It’s also when fruitful discourse can take place, arguing positions under a spotlight of evidence and science.
