Academic Content Warnings and Safe Spaces

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Agreed, but it feels like one of those things where people will do something if it doesn't feel too onerous, but will balk if it exceeds an arbitrary threshold. I would bet you could convince substantially more people to mark common allergens than provide complete ingredient lists.

Yup. Something is better than nothing—but this is also why you should expect people with serious food restrictions to either grill you about what's in your thing or not eat it at all.

My friends who are celiac... well, they mostly eat at home and at a very restricted set of fairly expensive restaurants where they've gotten enough details from the staff to know that the kitchen understands what things contain gluten and how to prevent cross-contamination. And even then they ask every single time about things like "have you been using the fryer for breaded stuff today?" before ordering fries.

It's true that a full ingredient lists take a bit more effort—but it's not that bad if you are aware that it's a good idea and do it while you're preparing the food. I guess I'd suggest that if you don't know that you have anyone with food restrictions in your life: sure, label the big eight (and make sure you check your ingredients to see if they contain those things, too!), but if anyone in your life has serious restrictions, make more of an effort.

If you don't do these things? Don't be surprised when people with these issues don't show up for dinner. Or show up and barely eat anything. And on the sadder end: think about how often they feel like they can't accept invitations for dinner, and what that must feel like.

My personal solution is that I just don't cook for other people at all. Even people without allergies don't like the things I attempt to make. I don't even like the things I attempt to make. See that bag of potato chips or pretzels or package of cookies on the table? That probably came from me.

I'd be literally terrified if someone actually *wanted* to come over for dinner. Especially after the above posts. I'd feel I would need to take out some sort of liability insurance first and not just because of my awful cooking!

Remember when making an effort to make those around you feel more comfortable was just called "manners" and we didn't have to legislate for it?

Maq wrote:

Remember when making an effort to make those around you feel more comfortable was just called "manners" and we didn't have to legislate for it?

No. No I don't.

I remember when you just made whatever you were going to make, and if someone was allergic to it, that was their problem.

I remember when "manners" was the allergic people shutting the hell up and not making a fuss.

Maq wrote:

Remember when making an effort to make those around you feel more comfortable was just called "manners" and we didn't have to legislate for it?

I don't know if this was ever really a thing. Sure, there were "manners," as such, but it was also socially acceptable to be horrible to certain segments of society just because they were slightly different from the group in power.

The world we have today is far from perfect, but I think I'll take it over segregated schools & separate drinking fountains any day.

Jonman wrote:
Maq wrote:

Remember when making an effort to make those around you feel more comfortable was just called "manners" and we didn't have to legislate for it?

No. No I don't.

I remember when you just made whatever you were going to make, and if someone was allergic to it, that was their problem.

I remember when "manners" was the allergic people shutting the hell up and not making a fuss.

I remember a day where I got stuck with my office's version of the "party planning committee" for the planning of some kind of celebration. I remember someone mentioning "We always do all these food days, but we have folks with allergies, dietary restrictions, etc... who can't eat most of the stuff we get because it isn't possible for them. Maybe we should try something else this time?"

Followed by: "Well, I'm pregnant, so there will be food, and if people don't like it, they can just deal with it, but I want food."

...and that being the end of the discussion because enough other people wanted food that the idea that some could not enjoy it just didn't matter.

Jonman wrote:
Maq wrote:

Remember when making an effort to make those around you feel more comfortable was just called "manners" and we didn't have to legislate for it?

No. No I don't.

I remember when you just made whatever you were going to make, and if someone was allergic to it, that was their problem.

I remember when "manners" was the allergic people shutting the hell up and not making a fuss.

/s?

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Maq wrote:

Remember when making an effort to make those around you feel more comfortable was just called "manners" and we didn't have to legislate for it?

No. No I don't.

I remember when you just made whatever you were going to make, and if someone was allergic to it, that was their problem.

I remember when "manners" was the allergic people shutting the hell up and not making a fuss.

/s?

I doubt it. It's a lot like folks complaining about disadvantaged/unprivileged minorities having the "gall" to speak up about injustices now... it presupposes that A. The injustices are new. B. Silence in the face of injustice is somehow correct.

In the case of allergens, people just had to not participate in food related activities or broach the subject with people that would be cooking for them with some frequency, and hope for people to be accommodating... otherwise, they had to continue sitting out, but did so now knowing that the person doing the cooking doesn't care about their health issue.

Funny correlation to A with food, you would not believe the number of folks who seem to think "all this concern about food" is getting ridiculous and is somehow new. We know better what some of it is now, and folks are being diagnosed better, but it's not exactly a new thing either.

Definitely not /s. I've recounted before the way people allergic to cigarette smoke were treated when public smoking inside buildings was a thing. It was perfectly fine for someone to respond to a request to put out a cigarette for the comfort of others (ie, my not f*cking choking) with "Oh, I'll be done in a minute" or "Maybe you can move to another table?" or "Sorry, it's allowed here". I had people literally blow smoke in my face when they were informed I was having trouble breathing (and Albuterol rescue inhalers did not exist in my world until the late 90's when my asthma was diagnosed). Not everyone did that, but enough that arguing over smoking was something that was acknowledged as an unremarkable event.

Likewise, food allergies were something the allergic person had to look out for themselves.

I think the "allergies at a potluck" is a pretty good analogy for college safe spaces. While I would be disappointed at a potluck that had no peanuts, pasta, dairy, meat, or citrus, I wouldn't mind if certain dishes were prepared with the needs of the minority in mind, and I can see where it would be thought of as rude if someone who was allergic to nothing took a gigantic helping of the allergy safe pie and left crumbs for someone who literally can't eat the peanut butter ice cream cake.

I find a weird juxtaposition when I see people in this thread basically posting how white supremacists are bad and shouldn't be accept in our society are some of the same people posting in the safe spaces thread about how people with allergies should just shut up and we don't have to be concerned about them.

So for food we can say "f-you. I make what I like it is your problem" but for racists it is "they should change their attitude" Shouldn't people bothered by white supremacists just learn to be quite about it?

I don't think anyone has said "for food we can say "f-you. I make what I like it is your problem", there was a discussion on how much warning is necessary, but no wholesale dismissal of allergies. and even if they had Allergies to Racism is not a even comparison.

farley3k wrote:

I find a weird juxtaposition when I see people in this thread basically posting how white supremacists are bad and shouldn't be accept in our society are some of the same people posting in the safe spaces thread about how people with allergies should just shut up and we don't have to be concerned about them.

So for food we can say "f-you. I make what I like it is your problem" but for racists it is "they should change their attitude" Shouldn't people bothered by white supremacists just learn to be quite about it?

While I'm sure you'll get a lot of flak for this, I think there's a lot of truth to it, in that I think there's a change in how we think of what makes something right and something wrong.

It's like we used to ask if you had an impermissible motive. Now we ask if the benefit you are claiming is worth the harm it does to people, if that makes sense. It's much less about building a system of morality, and more about looking at a particular case and asking what choice here is best for society. The question is now less about your motive and more about what kind of society you want to see.

And that's cool. : )

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Maq wrote:

Remember when making an effort to make those around you feel more comfortable was just called "manners" and we didn't have to legislate for it?

No. No I don't.

I remember when you just made whatever you were going to make, and if someone was allergic to it, that was their problem.

I remember when "manners" was the allergic people shutting the hell up and not making a fuss.

/s?

To clarify, kind of /s, yes.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but I'm also being blunt about how Maq's recollection of a kinder, gentler past doesn't line up with my recollection of a less-giving-a-f*ck-about-other-people's-experiences-that-don't-line-up-with-mine past.

FOR THE RECORD - I am not suggesting that we should tell folk with allergies to go pound sand. That is a dick move. I was pointing out that in the not too distant past, that dick move was the normal response to folk with allergies.

NathanialG wrote:

I don't think anyone has said "for food we can say "f-you. I make what I like it is your problem", there was a discussion on how much warning is necessary, but no wholesale dismissal of allergies. and even if they had Allergies to Racism is not a even comparison.

He did not use profanity but I don't think you could argue that is not the .... implication of Jonman's comment.

Jonman wrote:

No. No I don't.

I remember when you just made whatever you were going to make, and if someone was allergic to it, that was their problem.

I remember when "manners" was the allergic people shutting the hell up and not making a fuss.

farley3k wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

I don't think anyone has said "for food we can say "f-you. I make what I like it is your problem", there was a discussion on how much warning is necessary, but no wholesale dismissal of allergies. and even if they had Allergies to Racism is not a even comparison.

He did not use profanity but I don't think you could argue that is not the .... implication of Jonman's comment.

Jonman wrote:

No. No I don't.

I remember when you just made whatever you were going to make, and if someone was allergic to it, that was their problem.

I remember when "manners" was the allergic people shutting the hell up and not making a fuss.

Hopefully I've cleared that up.

If you read the bolded line out of context, yes, I'm saying a sh*tty thing.

If you bear in mind that I'm responding to Maq assertion, that's me pointing at history and saying "no, it was awful".

Edit - Jonman already clarified the post.

Jonman wrote:

Hopefully I've cleared that up.

If you read the bolded line out of context, yes, I'm saying a sh*tty thing.

If you bear in mind that I'm responding to Maq assertion, that's me pointing at history and saying "no, it was awful".

It has cleared it up and I know I was taking what you said out of context. It was just (as I said) a bit jarring to read the two threads back to back this morning.

Jonman wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Maq wrote:

Remember when making an effort to make those around you feel more comfortable was just called "manners" and we didn't have to legislate for it?

No. No I don't.

I remember when you just made whatever you were going to make, and if someone was allergic to it, that was their problem.

I remember when "manners" was the allergic people shutting the hell up and not making a fuss.

/s?

To clarify, kind of /s, yes.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but I'm also being blunt about how Maq's recollection of a kinder, gentler past doesn't line up with my recollection of a less-giving-a-f*ck-about-other-people's-experiences-that-don't-line-up-with-mine past.

FOR THE RECORD - I am not suggesting that we should tell folk with allergies to go pound sand. That is a dick move. I was pointing out that in the not too distant past, that dick move was the normal response to folk with allergies.

Thank you for the clarification. That was one possibly interpretation.

Thanks, everyone.

For a little bit of background, the school back in 2012 posted a position, with some background material, that was much more even-keeled in rhetoric, took the same stance on not cancelling events/speakers due to ideological content, but avoided any discussion of content warnings. They were pretty public about the meta-discussion that lead to that position, and it tended to respect that there were competing values at play.

Robear wrote:
Erika Price wrote:

It is impossible for a professor or teacher to anticipate every student’s triggers, and frankly, I’ve never met a student who was demanding or entitled about having their specific triggers tagged in advance. What I have encountered, numerous times, are students who have a trauma history or a mental illness that involves triggers, who are only willing to gently and quietly request trigger warnings after I have made my pro-TW stance abundantly clear. These requests have always been polite and reasonable, and have never involved scrubbing my syllabus clean of challenging material.

I think this is an ideal approach.

My experience at the UofC (just over a decade ago) was pretty much this. Teachers would give content warnings for common things (domestic abuse shows up a lot in American literature), and as part of the first-class introduction (and often with boilerplate at the top of the syllabus), they'd invite students to let them know privately if they needed any extra warnings, ability concessions, or anything else going on. There was an emphasis on getting those conversations going early, so that they could be negotiated.

And there have been safe spaces for minorities and LGBTQ folks since I was there. They've added a group/space/advocacy/support for rape and abuse survivors. Those programs aren't perfect, but they're there.

The best analysis I've seen of this recent stuff is that it's really just trying to court conservative donors. The safe spaces will still exist. Teachers aren't going to change their ways. It's a fundamental dislocation of administrative mouthpiece from academic body.

wordsmythe wrote:

The best analysis I've seen of this recent stuff is that it's really just trying to court conservative donors. The safe spaces will still exist. Teachers aren't going to change their ways. It's a fundamental dislocation of administrative mouthpiece from academic body.

This is more or less what I heard on the radio yesterday when the program was speaking to a professor from the school. The conclusion was that the administration had a chip on its shoulder by putting "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" in quote marks, which is clearly courting the anti-PC crowd, but that the policy itself is the school allows for trigger warnings and safe spaces but won't be making them a required part of university policy.

That seemed pretty reasonable to me, even if the administration's letter was overly antagonistic or outright hostile.

I was talking broadly about trigger warnings and not allergies with my manners comment actually but we appear to have moved on.

garion333 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

The best analysis I've seen of this recent stuff is that it's really just trying to court conservative donors. The safe spaces will still exist. Teachers aren't going to change their ways. It's a fundamental dislocation of administrative mouthpiece from academic body.

This is more or less what I heard on the radio yesterday when the program was speaking to a professor from the school. The conclusion was that the administration had a chip on its shoulder by putting "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" in quote marks, which is clearly courting the anti-PC crowd, but that the policy itself is the school allows for trigger warnings and safe spaces but won't be making them a required part of university policy.

That seemed pretty reasonable to me, even if the administration's letter was overly antagonistic or outright hostile.

What's more, I don't believe policies are changing. The policy to allow for those things but not mandate them or cancel events due to content was formalized in 2012.

So, it's basically just "shut up and do yer liberal stuff in private, whiners"?

From the administration, yes, if that's how you want to frame it. I'm not sure a classroom is exactly private though.

I prefer to think of it as the faculty and administration aren't a homogeneous group and even though the administration was outright hostile toward these concepts they aren't necessarily actively stopping them from taking place. That is better than setting up rules to stop safe spaces and trigger warnings, right?

garion333 wrote:

From the administration, yes, if that's how you want to frame it. I'm not sure a classroom is exactly private though.

I prefer to think of it as the faculty and administration aren't a homogeneous group and even though the administration was outright hostile toward these concepts they aren't necessarily actively stopping them from taking place. That is better than setting up rules to stop safe spaces and trigger warnings, right?

Not by much, as it empowers the privileged to feel more morally right and complain about any teacher who feels they have merit.

Demosthenes wrote:

Not by much, as it empowers the privileged to feel more morally right and complain about any teacher who feels they have merit.

This would be my takeaway. I have a few professor friends in my timeline, and their response to this was horror over the fact that they would feel backed in a corner if they were dragged in front of the administration over such an issue. They'd still go on with it, but it makes them less apt to talk to the administration about these issues, I suppose?

The ground has been well-trod, but I know that trigger warnings for a select few courses would have been useful during college (there was no way in hell any but a few of my professors would've used them when I attended). And similarly: I wouldn't have tried avoiding any of the content, but I would have been better prepared to deal with it all. Being an exhausted student with a full course load is taxing enough without also adding a surprise emotional gutpunch.

Slate posted an excellent article on this topic today, if anyone's interested. It's a fairly long read, but definitely worth it.