Callate said:
Just because some sort of out-and-out conspiracy isn't in play doesn't mean there isn't a real problem worth engaging. If we ignore any concern that is subject to hyperbole in the age of the Internet, there's virtually nothing left to discuss.
Well it happened in this very thread and was the original person I was replying to, I'm not pulling it from out of the dark corners. Sometimes I think there should be like a new Godwin with the inevitability that people start comparing relatively innocuous things happening in isolated cases to an Orwellian world government.
I don't know that "malice" is the defining motive, but it's increasingly hard to credit the way some would pervert terms like "safety" or "equality" or "constructive". I do think there is, in some cases, a real desire to dictate the terms of discussion and control the acceptable narrative; a belief that not only can one change society by shifting its language and taboos, but that it is appropriate to try to do so, regardless of the desire or consent of those the system would affect.
We already know what this looks like in its purest form, because there are already numerous accredited universities such as BYU and Liberty and a list of others that DO actively control the message and punish kids for not conforming to certain religious, social, and political standards, and do so using official school rules and expelling those that don't conform. However, most people accept this as part of the American university landscape, that there are going to be colleges known for their politics and there's never been an expectation for them to be completely unbiased.
A liberal university, in Oberlin's case, one of the most liberal and progressive universities out there, does something that is much lighter, and people start losing their minds. Keep in mind that while you're complaining about the possibility of a professor getting reprimanded for discussing or showing things not vital to the coursework, there's accredited institutions teaching creationism as fact and forcing them to attend political rallies. Oberlin is, in the end, a fairly small private college, not a major public one, and if people don't like their politics or rules, then there is no end to the alternate colleges they can go to. And of course, even super-liberal Oberlin still has not actually adopted this policy.
I've had my own discomforts with the positions of some of the faculty where I earned my degree, but if you find it difficult to ascribe those who favor Oberlin's policy with malice, I find it equally difficult to imagine that there's a large number of people in academia who are waiting for an opportunity to inject racism into their biology class. What I do find entirely possible and even likely in the current climate is that a film studies class couldn't examine Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will, both considered monumental works of cinema, but both shadowed by the sympathies of their creators. Or a music or theater class would have to omit The Mikado, a work that recently came under harsh scrutiny in Seattle. Or an English Literature class would skirt around The Taming of the Shrew, or The Merchant of Venice, or The Tempest.
Funny you mention those things, I talked about this issue in a different context in this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/663.875014-If-you-are-heavily-ideologically-biased-against-a-game-should-you-still-review-it?page=6#22003823]. In any case, I agree that if you're studying film or theater or any art really you have to wade through a lot of stuff that is straight-up racist by our standards, and often include themes that many people wound find offensive if done today. As a fan of classical opera, I'm even more aware of this fact than your average person.
But not once in that article or anywhere else did I hear anyone at Oberlin say these things, specifically, should not be taught in the context of artistic classes. The original complaint was that the professor wanted to talk about the beauty and romanticism of a scene depicting a rape and someone took issue with that, then the professor essentially shamed her into staying silent. There's very fertile ground for discussion when it comes to depictions of rape in art across time and cultures, but that didn't appear to be what the professor was fostering. Instead, someone who might have survived a rape was forced to analyze a depiction of it only on positive terms. Rather than saying that should not be taught, instead the person should know ahead of time they will be having to go over a detailed depiction of rape ahead of time so they can prepare or excuse themselves from the discussion.
Again, whether or not this whole thing should be discussed under the concept of triggers is a discussion worth having, but I think the "problem" has been mischaracterized.
Keep in mind that before WWII, many ideas common in Nazi ideology (doesn't count as Godwin since you brought up the Triumph of the Will first!), between extreme racism, racialism, antisemitism, eugenics, along with other things were also common in the US, among both the society at large and intellectuals and academia. The only way that changed was through a profound, progressive culture change in colleges that mirrored the repudiation of such ideas after WWII. For decades, the Triumph of the Will would never have been shown in universities, that's a relatively recent development.
Colleges and universities need to be able to expose their students to ideas that are new and sometimes uncomfortable if it's going to continue to be accurate to describe them as institutes of higher learning. For all that it is claimed that such treatment doesn't amount to censorship, the demand that works be omitted or defended on a case-by-case basis is not a remotely reasonable one, and cannot help but have a chilling effect on meaningful speech and discussion. There is a possibility of harming the ability of students as a whole to get a meaningful education that must not be ignored in consideration of a smaller group that professes to be offended or "triggered".
Again, you bring up this argument when it comes to a liberal university, but this has never been the standards by which institutes of higher learning have been judged. Programs at universities and the universities themselves only need accreditation to gain this standard, and the standard really isn't really all that high. That could be seen as a good thing, schools, especially private schools, should be able to teach what they wish to within reason without the government telling them which facts to report on. It's a sticky issue all around, but it's always been a balancing act.
This is not to say that those of more fragile sensibilities need to be ignored. But I think making it a matter of policy to cater to them specifically is a dangerous precedent. Something like an independent student guide created by a TA might be useful, without needing to dictate or color the actual syllabus. But putting the onus on faculty to be "safe" creates an obstacle to what should be the class' primary focus: teaching.
Teaching math is easy in this context, just as teaching math at a super Christian school should come mostly without controversy. The issue has always lied in how history and even literature classes should be taught, and most people would agree that there should be some standards for how those things are taught, but it's never going to be completely unbiased. The instructors are always going to put their own tinge on things. Teachers at a very liberal school being aware that their students might have very liberal feelings and interpretations of things, and might be sensitive to things that the overall populace might be less sensitive to, seems less like academic fascism and more like a rational way to run the school. Just as teachers at Liberty should probably be aware that anti-Christian rants in history class might not be welcomed with open arms, and they could certainly be reprimanded for them.
