Amidst
all manner of reactions on the web and social media, we learn that
the University
of Chicago has
sent new students a blunt statement clearly opposing any potential
instigations of campus political correctness. The letter, diverging
from the usual anodyne 'welcome' , has incited thousands of
passionate responses, for and against.
The
letter from John Ellison, dean of students, reads in part:
“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,”
The
preceding was a not-so-veiled rebuke to any
potential protesters from the class of 2020 who might be
tempted to howl over the speech to be
condoned on campus. Also, who should be allowed
to speak,
issues that have rocked
Yale, Wesleyan, Oberlin and
many other colleges and universities in recent years. Some alumni,
dismayed by the trend, have
withheld donations from
their alma maters.
We already saw the case of early education expert
Erika Christakis at the center of a
Halloween brouhaha at Yale last year. It began when Yale's
Intercultural Affairs Committee advised students they ought
not present themselves wearing feathered headdresses, turbans or war
paint - or modifying skin tones (to appear as a minstrel performer) .
The aim was to try to steer students into being more sensitive in
their choice of costume or apparel.
In
response, Ms. Christakis dispatched her own email wondering whether
such oversight and advice was really needed. She wrote:
"Whose
business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people to
get them to act responsibly?"
Adding:
"Free
speech and ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free
and open society".
Many
Yalies became enraged and called for Christakis and her husband
to be removed from their positions as heads of undergraduate
residence at Yale. Ms. Christakis then resigned from her teaching
position. In an early April WSJ piece, she admitted
she stepped down not only because of the email kerfuffle but also she
felt more broadly that "the
campus climate didn't allow open dialogue".
In
other words, it more or less treated staff and students as impudent
and out of control barbarians who had to be directed toward more
judicious actions and couldn't be depended on to act responsibly on
their own.
In
the end, this is basically what the Univ. of Chicago letter is all
about apart from vindicating policies that were already in
place there as well as at a number of other universities
calling for “the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of
ideas.”
Interestingly,
last
year, a faculty Committee on Freedom of Expression, appointed
by university president, Robert R. Zimmer produced
a report stating
that: “it
is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield
individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome,
disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”
Unfortunately, the basis of the Chicago letter appears to have been
misunderstood by many students as suggesting that slurs and racial,
sexual or other putdowns are now to be tolerated. Not so!
Only that vehemently expressed ideas are not snuffed out a priori
before speakers or writers are heard, seen.
For
example, while the opinions of a hard core atheist against Mother
Theresa, i.e. as a phony plaster "saint", might rile some
students, it is not in their purview to stop the speech.
They do have the choice to attend or not.
In
like manner, the Chicago letter makes clear Students "are
encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn without fear
of censorship." In addition, that means the school "does
not support so-called 'trigger warnings' " to alert students of
upcoming discussions or speakers that they might find offensive.
Why
should the university do that? Its role is not to be a nurse maid,
or acting therp for student piques, neuroses and sensitivities. In
this regard, the grown up makes his or her own choices and knows what
stimuli to avoid and doesn't have to be overtly protected from
speeches, ideas or controversial writings.
Thus,
The University of Chicago letter is saying it won't cancel
controversial speakers, and it "does not condone the creation of
intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas
and perspectives at odds with their own."
Which
is good! I think back to my freshman year at Loyola (1964-65) and how
impoverished I'd have been if Loyola's Jesuits had been so twitchy
about the French atheist Jean Paul -Sarte that they hadn't let him
on campus to debate Christian Existentialist Gabriel Marcel. I also likely never would
have learned about "good faith" and "bad faith"
and been motivated to get Sartre's book (from the Loyola bookstore): Being
and Nothingness.
Political
science professor Charles Lipson quoted on the NPR.org site said:
"I
think it's an excellent thing," adding that too many
campuses are shutting down discussions or speeches that some might
find uncomfortable or offensive.
In
the 60s, I don't recall any such barricading of ideas occurring even
at Catholic Loyola. Indeed, we welcomed the parry and thrust of
vehement debate especially in dorm rooms after classes We regarded it
as part of our education, an extension if you will. This included
themes such as the morality (or not) of the Vietnam War, racial
relations, and relations between the sexes.
Despite
speakers vocalizing topics that were absolute poppycock, i.e. "mind
rape" from one feminist, we came to hear her out - or not. We
didn't whine to the administration at South Florida about "no
trigger warnings" or "micro aggressions".
My
friend, Dr. Pat Bannister - Bajan psychiatrist- would have been
appalled at the very idea of enlisting such verbal jui jitsu to
prevent speech. Like Prof. Christakis, she feared the mass regression
of adults to the state of de facto children, especially with the
oncoming emphasis on the visual by way of TV. Like Christakis, she
believed true adults needed to be able to make their own decisions
and also have the maturity to live with them, come what may.
This
is the message, I believe, that is sent by the University of Chicago
letter to the incoming frosh. Maybe they will take heed, but they may
also use rationalizations to dismiss it, as one Prof at Univ. of Iowa attempted. In this case, one can reckon they may
be poorer for their college experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment