> No way in hell would I assign that today. Not even to grad students.
If this is not hyperbole, then it is shocking. I mean OK, I can imagine undergrads being hysterical one way or another -- that's part of being that age. And frankly we are all still working out millennia of screwed up attitudes, so some reasonable positions can seem crazy, and vice versa.
But a grad student in German history should be able to read, and carry around, Mein Kampf; if that is reasonable than why shouldn't a grad student in English, Indian, or African colonial history be able to read an account of an equally dreadful past?
If you can't cut an animal apart don't become a medicinal chemist. Likewise if you are squeamish about history, don't become a historian.
I'm pretty skeptical of the claim that liberal students will be "triggered" by teaching out of a book that calls some colonial slaughter "genocide" leading to the professor's career being impacted.
It's hard to say for sure, but this reads like someone who is very conservative that is overstating or overestimating what is probably a real (but much less severe) problem.
noun - anything, as an act or event, that serves as a stimulus and initiates or precipitates a reaction or series of reactions.
verb (used with object) - to initiate or precipitate (a chain of events, scientific reaction, psychological process, etc.): Their small protest triggered a mass demonstration.
to initiate or precipitate (a chain of events, scientific reaction, psychological process, etc.):
verb (used without object) - to become active; activate.
'Triggered' in this context is the past participle of the verb form used without an object.
From what I've read, it is something similar to the "triggering" of a post traumatic panic attack. Akin to how veterans from war can be "triggered" by loud sounds or environments similar to what they experienced while at war, the term is used in the context of social triggering.
Basically, if you trigger someone, you're bringing up undue trauma for them, such as forcing them to reminisce about a prior rape or other similarly shocking event. I'll be the first to admit that I think the use of the term gets out of hand, as many people use it as an excuse to shut down discourse or browbeat opponents such that they do not say anything that could possibly agree with a reality that contains triggering or disagreeable thoughts.
In the context of the article, I imagine it's an attitude that's viewed as being used as a political tool against professors to stop them from teaching or using material that contains content outside of what the author prescribes as a "liberal agenda." I'll admit, I've seen similar problems with the undergrads at my own university (hell, I was an undergrad not too long ago and interacted with some of these people myself) , but I'm unsure if the problem is as tumorous as the author indicates.
I'd argue that for the most part, ideologies such as acceptance and "not consciously trying to distress or harm other people" are good ones. However, this appears to be the logical extreme of such ideas. Only Siths etc... The biggest problem with this though, is that if somebody _does_ make a claim against you for "triggering" or offending them, it is taken far more seriously than it often should. It appears people seem much more quick to jump to lawyers and litigation than I think was previous, but that is likely just a bias in what I see daily. At a systemic level, the best way to deal with such situations is to remove the mob mentality behind situations where discourse is shut down for the sake of political correctness (e.g. calling people out on social media), and to resolve the issue with some form of arbiter to ensure that neither side engages in petty tactics. The problem is that it is much, much easier said than done.
In this context, it means discussion that triggers an uncomfortable memory or thought by a sensitive person, perhaps directly related to the imagery, perhaps not. Either way, some liberals fault the speaker as victimizing the listener, whether intentional or not. Speakers should pre-censor their words.
Triggered means, made to recall and relive a traumatic psychological episode. Think about a soldier with PTSD hearing fireworks.
Now then, that's the impression of the mental anguish this word is supposed to evoke. However, in the context of this article, the phrase triggered is instead used anytime you're made uncomfortable.
Criticism of my writing? You triggered my feelings of inadequacy from my childhood... How dare you? Point out that I am using ad hominem arguments, and you're a privileged white male who is out to actively oppress me.
I wish this was one big circle jerk, full of self deprecating humor from a bored group of trolls, but it sure doesn't seem like it.
Search phrases for more research: "SJW", "cis", "/r/tumblerinaction"
I hesitate to point these out to you, but Reddit has several examples of these kinds of attitudes having negative effects on folks' real lives, on both sides.
Gamergate, "tumbler in action", social justice warriors, these are the names a few of these online conflicts have taken.
As absurd as all of those generally are, I don't think any of those are remotely as absurd as retaliation against a teacher for teaching from a book that calls historical colonial slaughter "genocide".
I agree. Sadly, we as a society don't judge on absurdity, we judge on the loudest, most offended voice.
We've seen this occur prominently within the tech industry - offended folks getting their offenders fired through "triggered" public outrage which ended in an indiscriminate swatting of both parties - so I see no reason why universities would be exempt from this absurdity.
The author seems to hate both liberals and conservatives equally, but his rhetoric is pure college republican; playing the victim when one is in fact in a position of power and status and privilege, and a willful misunderstanding of what is objectionable to these people they call "liberals".
It is a fantasy of being a victim when the author claims that they couldn't assign a book on genocide because of liberal students; this is exactly the kind of reading done in feminist and postcolonial studies programs. Also telling is the author's worry that "one bougie, liberal student" would complain about "texts about climate change" which "indicted our consumption-based lifestyles"; this is the position of the left/liberals; it is conservative students which object to these kinds of texts; so again, a victim fantasy.
I rarely see these, "playing the victim" arguments shut down. I'll frequently see them deconstructed, explained away, dismissed, but not forcefully and cunningly defused.
Here's my attempt: Academic environments have historically been places of cultural experimentation diametrically opposed to the stifling culture of the workplace.
How desperate and bereft of sensitivity and creativity must you be to emulate the corporate model of HR in your classroom?
If it's true (seems improbable, but then I live in PC-free society, how would I know) it's very sad, and funny at the same time. Shows that every idea, no matter how well-intentioned, can and will be abused eventually.
Another example - the outrage about the shirt of Rosetta misstion scientist. It was unreal.
15 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 42.4 ms ] threadIf this is not hyperbole, then it is shocking. I mean OK, I can imagine undergrads being hysterical one way or another -- that's part of being that age. And frankly we are all still working out millennia of screwed up attitudes, so some reasonable positions can seem crazy, and vice versa.
But a grad student in German history should be able to read, and carry around, Mein Kampf; if that is reasonable than why shouldn't a grad student in English, Indian, or African colonial history be able to read an account of an equally dreadful past?
If you can't cut an animal apart don't become a medicinal chemist. Likewise if you are squeamish about history, don't become a historian.
It's hard to say for sure, but this reads like someone who is very conservative that is overstating or overestimating what is probably a real (but much less severe) problem.
noun - anything, as an act or event, that serves as a stimulus and initiates or precipitates a reaction or series of reactions.
verb (used with object) - to initiate or precipitate (a chain of events, scientific reaction, psychological process, etc.): Their small protest triggered a mass demonstration. to initiate or precipitate (a chain of events, scientific reaction, psychological process, etc.):
verb (used without object) - to become active; activate.
'Triggered' in this context is the past participle of the verb form used without an object.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trigger?s=t
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle
Basically, if you trigger someone, you're bringing up undue trauma for them, such as forcing them to reminisce about a prior rape or other similarly shocking event. I'll be the first to admit that I think the use of the term gets out of hand, as many people use it as an excuse to shut down discourse or browbeat opponents such that they do not say anything that could possibly agree with a reality that contains triggering or disagreeable thoughts.
In the context of the article, I imagine it's an attitude that's viewed as being used as a political tool against professors to stop them from teaching or using material that contains content outside of what the author prescribes as a "liberal agenda." I'll admit, I've seen similar problems with the undergrads at my own university (hell, I was an undergrad not too long ago and interacted with some of these people myself) , but I'm unsure if the problem is as tumorous as the author indicates.
I'd argue that for the most part, ideologies such as acceptance and "not consciously trying to distress or harm other people" are good ones. However, this appears to be the logical extreme of such ideas. Only Siths etc... The biggest problem with this though, is that if somebody _does_ make a claim against you for "triggering" or offending them, it is taken far more seriously than it often should. It appears people seem much more quick to jump to lawyers and litigation than I think was previous, but that is likely just a bias in what I see daily. At a systemic level, the best way to deal with such situations is to remove the mob mentality behind situations where discourse is shut down for the sake of political correctness (e.g. calling people out on social media), and to resolve the issue with some form of arbiter to ensure that neither side engages in petty tactics. The problem is that it is much, much easier said than done.
Now then, that's the impression of the mental anguish this word is supposed to evoke. However, in the context of this article, the phrase triggered is instead used anytime you're made uncomfortable.
Criticism of my writing? You triggered my feelings of inadequacy from my childhood... How dare you? Point out that I am using ad hominem arguments, and you're a privileged white male who is out to actively oppress me.
I wish this was one big circle jerk, full of self deprecating humor from a bored group of trolls, but it sure doesn't seem like it.
Search phrases for more research: "SJW", "cis", "/r/tumblerinaction"
Gamergate, "tumbler in action", social justice warriors, these are the names a few of these online conflicts have taken.
We've seen this occur prominently within the tech industry - offended folks getting their offenders fired through "triggered" public outrage which ended in an indiscriminate swatting of both parties - so I see no reason why universities would be exempt from this absurdity.
It is a fantasy of being a victim when the author claims that they couldn't assign a book on genocide because of liberal students; this is exactly the kind of reading done in feminist and postcolonial studies programs. Also telling is the author's worry that "one bougie, liberal student" would complain about "texts about climate change" which "indicted our consumption-based lifestyles"; this is the position of the left/liberals; it is conservative students which object to these kinds of texts; so again, a victim fantasy.
Here's my attempt: Academic environments have historically been places of cultural experimentation diametrically opposed to the stifling culture of the workplace.
How desperate and bereft of sensitivity and creativity must you be to emulate the corporate model of HR in your classroom?
Another example - the outrage about the shirt of Rosetta misstion scientist. It was unreal.
Same groups behind Donglegate (or Donglewater, however you prefer to call your scandals.)