POPc Participant Aitka's Post:
Lately, I’ve been reading a lot of commentary about movements by college/graduate students to make their campuses more welcoming to people from a variety of backgrounds, whether it be in creating a safe spaces, usage of trigger warming’s, or an acknowledgement of historical mistreatment or erasure of minority groups. A lot of the commentary I’ve seen amounts to a lot of hand-wringing about whether kids today are tough enough to survive in the world, or that accommodating minority viewpoints amounts to censorship of others. I, however, am worried that people (writers who immediately come to mind about his are Conor Friedersdorf or Jonathan Chait) who make these arguments are misconstruing what the students raising these discussions are asking for. Primarily, they are asking for empathy.
From my perspective, the mainstream/accepted view of “free speech” is a liberal idea in the traditional sense, and is most championed by traditional liberals, namely white men. As minority groups have started to wield some clout they are no longer content to be spoken to and about on others’ terms. They want their institutions to recognize them, whether by acknowledging current racism and sexism, or owning up to ugly histories. They are in favor of using their own free speech to upset the status quo, in a way that forces the majority to have to share the stage as never before.
For example, my understanding of trigger warnings is that they are a method to signal to students who have personal experience with sexual assault, war, violence, or other deep trauma, that there is material in the curriculum that may trigger a reaction. The student can then prepare in whatever way they find necessary to deal with the issue, which may mean skipping class for group discussion or not reading all of the assigned materials. They are not asking that certain topics not be discussed, or that certain books not be read, but that they are offered consideration. These students are not trying to hide from the bad things in the world; they are most likely to be intimately aware of them. At the same time, professors would consider that the academic value is in teaching the way they have taught a subject for X number of years.
As a graduate of law school, I took criminal law in my first year as all law students do. Many criminal law classes spend at least a week focusing on rape (and most students call it “Rape Week”). Law professors use rape to illustrate several concepts in criminal law, whether rape itself is necessary. At the same time, students read a case history going back centuries that systematically devalues women’s humanity. Law school classes are discussion based, and often dominate by men, some with ugly opinions. Statistics about how many women have experienced sexual abuse or assault are pretty widely known at this point – professors would recognize that not only is it pretty likely some of their students have been victims, some students have also been perpetrators. Accommodating those who have experience this trauma is not censorship, it is merely understanding that people should be able to obtain an education without being needlessly traumatized.
Another recent issue that came to mind is the email to Yale students asking them to be thoughtful in their Halloween costumes and then the subsequent response from an associate master saying that kinds should be able to be kids and be able to be offensive, dismissing the initial intent of the email from the university. The university never banned offensive costumes, but asked students to be thoughtful about what those costumes were saying. Part of the responsibility of free speech is understanding what you are saying. What would the purpose be for a student to wear a Halloween costume on a college campus that is derogatory towards a portion of the campus population? Yes, the student has the right to make offensive statements. But the rest of the community has the right to speak with as much force about why they disagree.