The University of Chicago took a small but important step this week in protecting academic freedom. It sent a letter to incoming freshmen telling them clearly that they should not expect “trigger warnings” or “safe spaces” because the school rejects such things on principle.
The letter should hearten those who are genuinely interested in a college education that broadens their minds instead of confirming their prejudices.
“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,” wrote Dean of Students John Ellison.
“Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without fear of censorship,” he added. “You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.”
Good for Mr Ellison.
If you went to college more than 10 or 15 years ago, you might be puzzled that such a note is necessary. Sadly, however, campus culture has become so toxic, so hostile to free expression of ideas, and so hypersensitive to anything potentially perceived as offensive (even where no offense is intended) that it is now necessary.
Grand View University professor Kevin Gannon responded to Ellison at length at the website, Vox, arguing that the letter is “about power” and keeping “gatekeepers in place,” and not about academic freedom at all. His essay casually ignores all the many instances in just the last academic year when national news stories and campus unrest have resulted from coddled students’ furious overreactions against the expression of dissenting viewpoints, or against even more ridiculous and petty perceived slights such as Halloween costumes or ethnic meals served in campus cafeterias.
Such occurrences are now so common that even President Obama warned against colleges protecting students’ egos to the point that they are also “protecting” them from receiving a rigorous education. If even Obama finds you too tyrannically left-wing, you really are out on the fringe. That’s where the academy now is.
Obama was right to speak up because students who enter the real world with ridiculous expectations that other people will coddle their self-centered sensibilities are unprepared for life.
As far as “trigger warnings” go, Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argued persuasively in the Atlantic that institutionally shielding people from what they fear doesn’t help them heal.
“Safe spaces” have become an even more controversial topic. On some campuses, they have become a justification for a modern-day version of racial segregation and exclusion, with students at the University of California-Los Angeles and New York University demanding racially segregated dormitories. This defeats one of the stated purposes that colleges and courts cite as justification for affirmative action to create diverse student populations. If students’ minds are broadened by the experience of meeting people from different backgrounds, then what is one to make of student attempts to use university resources for self-segregation?
The more common form of “safe space” is the kind used to block out ideas one dislikes. Students at Oberlin college created a “safe space” when American Enterprise Scholar Christina Hoff Sommers came to speak. It wasn’t that Hoff Sommers had said anything sexist, it’s that she doesn’t subscribe to their peculiar idea of feminism, beyond which they proved unwilling to look.
Until a few years ago, students didn’t require safe spaces and trigger warnings, or to be shielded from speakers with whom they disagreed. This is a new phenomenon, and it’s why today’s students are being described as “entitled” and “coddled.”
Good on the University of Chicago for taking a stand in trying to reclaim intellectual diversity and for preparing students for reality. The incoming freshmen will surely feel encouraged by the message it sends.
