Yeah exactly

The title of the video and it's caption is enough to tell me that it's not going to provide a balanced outlook so I'll just answer question in the OP.

The idea of safe spaces is ridiculous but I do believe that, when tackling difficult subjects, it's only decent to warn people ahead of time. Respect people's feelings and experiences but don't shy away from reality or the truth.

I would Tell Admin.

Well I also am thinking of what my wife is currently doing in Mental Health. Obviously, learning about depression / anxiety disorders etc. And of course dealing with people who are currently suffering from them, could be a trigger issue for some. But you wouldn't take on the course anyway and say "I want to avoid those issues"... ... You would know that it's just not a course that you can realistically study.

Likewise, I studied psychology and in the "abnormal psychology" sections there are a LOT of case studies of childhood abuse and neglect, as it's one of the main causes of abnormal psychology in later life. It's understandable that someone who has themselves been abused might not be able to handle those lectures but again... It's an important part of the subject... It's going to come up.

Similar for sexual assault / assault in general / abuse cases if you're going to study Law... It should be pretty obvious what's involved.

I definitely don't believe that anyone who has trigger issues is weak or "just shouldn't have them", for many people they are genuine and very real, like the examples above, they can come from very dark experiences. But I do think that having trigger warnings for individual lectures is not only impractical... It's just not feasible. If it's part of what you're learning about, you can't just say "I'm skipping this bit" and have it removed from your assessments too...

But ALL of that said, looking at a few University prospectuses, it's not often made clear what the content of a course will be beyond a very vague couple of paragraphs, and I think it would be fair enough to suggest the Universities should give more information about the content of courses, before an offer of a place is accepted. Especially considering that University IS a paid-for service, and a very expensive one at that.

Could be as simple as an email sent along with the offer of acceptance outlining any potential issues and suggesting that the applicant consider it carefully before commencing study. Would cover everyone then from the outset, no need for conflicts later :shrug:.

Even TV shows these days do something similar at the start of a show, so that you can simply not watch it if you think it'll be an issue. They don't pause the show half way through and say "Warning! Upsetting part is about to happen!"

"Likewise, I studied psychology "


Yes TS
it shows in your posts......

[They don't pause the show half way through and say "Warning! Upsetting part is about to happen!" ]

But on Ch5HD CBB
longer warnings after a ad
no one could miss that.

Viacom's Clever Legal Team
letting us Have the C and F words.
Is that not nice ... Dr.T.S.

They have to repeat it after the ads on Channel 5 because the average Channel 5 viewer has an attention span of only a few seconds. Like a goldfish.

Fair Points TS

Yes but at least the little ones
leave the the room..........

Or they are meant to.........

It's totally barmy!

She comes across as a bit of a superior spoilt brat who has spent her life being protected from all the 'evil' in society by mummy and daddy. She lives in her own little bubble.

I can't watch the video now but the obsession with 'trigger warnings' baffles me. I really don't see what the issue is with people being informed that the content of a lecture, programme, speech, performance or otherwise may potentially be upsetting for some. My housemate for example is currently doing a unit called War and Violence, in which they're discussing such delightful topics like torture and genocide - and he's said that the lecturer has made a point of jesting that the content is naturally 'pretty heavy for a Monday afternoon' and that given some of the images and statistics that are going to be shared, if anyone wishes to leave the room at any point they're welcome to.

No one is obliged to sit, listen and watch things they may find upsetting or indeed traumatic given past experiences - especially when they are paying £9,000 a year for the privilege. I don't want to watch horror movies for example, that's my prerogative and I'm not duty bound to sit there through one, this works in the same way.

Do I think it is beneficial for people to learn things they might not wish to have known? Yes. Are they absolutely required to just because some people around the world have some absurd obsession with people not fulfilling their role as 'adults' in the 'real world' (however you even qualify these ridiculous notions). Definitely not. Once again I find it fascinating that it's usually the so-called proponents of free speech and freedom of expression who have such an issue with people doing just that.

Incidentally since TS mentioned it, no one seems to have any problems with such warnings about sensitive material in a TV show being provided before it begins, or post-show advice and helplines being offered to those affected. Where's the faux outrage and insults after nearly every episode of EastEnders?

In regards to free speech at universities - since this topic seems to be cropping up a lot on here of late, I find myself constantly conflicted on the issue. On the one hand, yes, universities of all places should be an environment where ideas are discussed and debated in a civilised and academic setting. I can however also see the opposite - which is that universities should also be institutions of tolerance, solidarity and inclusion - the one place (wah wah safe space triggered snowflake wah wah real world wah pussies) where many people who may have felt marginalised growing up feel they can express and be themselves without fear of degradation. A students' union thus shouldn't be spending its money on inviting speakers who actively deride the rights and existence of many student communities within the university.

I actually think the right answer lies somewhere in the middle. By all means stage and encourage academic debate, but the clue is in the phrase - academic. This does not equate to inviting real life troll Katie Hopkins along to spout her unfounded bile, she is not and never will be anything close to an academic. It would be akin to those on the left asking Gary Lineker to provide a counter argument. If you want an academic debate, we're talking people like Charles Murray or Imogen Tyler, not some rent a gob media *****.

Let's face it though... US academia is so financially prohibitive that without "spoilt brats and their mummies and daddies", it simply wouldn't exist at all.

Yes it is, it's the guy from the radio interview you posted the other day.
It was an insensitive comparison, and I can see how it might make some young people feel uncomfortable if they identify as gay themselves, or even if they don't there's the connotation is is something to be repulsed by.

Sharing a personal opinion in the course of a lecture is fine but it's important to ensure you don't say anything indirectly insulting.

The student was well within her rights to express her discomfort, for him to then literally broadcast his objection to being challenged and the emotive language he uses while doing it is telling.

Again here he discredits a whole generation :/

Trigger warnings are not a new thing, they are on programming on sensitive subjects and news reports so where's the issue?

If she is the result maybe we would be better off without them. Any moron can buy an education. Says little about their IQ.

Maybe I was wrong yesterday; I actually agree with you there :joker:. Access to higher education should be based purely on the academic merit of the applicant and not the ability of their parents to pay 6-figure-sums to buy them an education... and also, if access WAS more academically competitive, and financially feasible for all, then the people who end up with places would probably be better suited to understanding the emotional robustness that a person needs to fully engage, openly, with the academic process.

Define 'emotional robustness'...

As I said earlier this 17yr old young woman is eloquent, reasoned, articulate and more than capable of participating in an academic debate... So where is the issue?

Like I said, it's not a judgement, but to fully engage in certain subjects at a high academic level you have to be prepared to encounter distressing and potentially emotionally triggering subject matters. It can't simply be that certain parts of the course are optional for those who can't. Examples being child abuse issues being covered in a psychology degree, or sexual assault cases being discussed in a criminal law degree. I did mention, though, that I think Universities should be clearer with prospective students BEFORE they start a course, if that course contains any potentially distressing subject matters. Once someone begins a course of education with that knowledge, though... I don't think it's feasible or reasonable to provide warnings at every lecture... mainly because I don't think it should make any difference. You can't just say "oh well then I'll skip those lectures / that entire portion of the degree" ... it would basically be "Trigger warning for this lecture but you have to come anyway so...".

Yeah, if they later on think they can't handle certain subject areas then they need to ask themselves if studying (and potentially gaining a career in) that field is really what they should be doing. :think:

Ugh. Safe space and triggered. My current least fave words, closely followed by snowflake. And all 3 seem to be tibbs buzzwords right now. Fantastic.

IMO Uni should be a place that prepares you for the real world. In the real world, you will get ignorant arseholes and people who disagree with you, you may well have to discuss topics that make you feel uncomfortable and so on. Not many bosses would take wailing 'I am TRIGGERED' whilst sobbing and running out of the workplace all because someone said something about a scrotum or something all that well... I do not feel there is any need for the 'safe space' nonsense.

Indeed.
She won't get far in the university of life.
If you decide to go to uni to learn more of a subject with a view to a career then surely you would find out what the subject is all about.

It would seem so. I know as a parent we all want to protect our kids from evil in the world, but the best protection you can give them is to help them to become free thinking, strong and independant adults, who face up to life's problems instead of running away from them and expecting everyone else to dance to their tune.:wavey:

:laugh3:

These trigger warnings are for people who may require them, not everyone therefore this logic is flawed that young people are more sensitive because they have trigger warnings, because at present they don't.... Which is why the young lady is debating their usefulness for those who may be affected to be warned as an important psychological tool is preparedness, if you want to challenge your feels you have to be mentally aware and receptive.

Should you have say, a fear of spiders and someone just plopped a spider on the table you might have an extreme response... whereas if someone were to say, 'here is a spider' we are going to look at this today, delivered in a safe way you would feel more comfortable to confront it.

So basically as you say I think all that is being suggested as yet is the students be made aware prior to commencement of a lecture but that's not to say that that would be sufficient reason to miss that lecture in it's entirety.
Should it say be in relation to a topic such as rape, and there were images to be shown of the scene, that may require a warning for example?
It's respectful, to blurt on about the need for PTSD sufferers to just in essence 'get over it' as this guy does is questionable.

Maybe that's why the suicide rate is so high, and there is no money for mental health.... because not enough people recognise it as important?

It's certainly not that I don't recognise it as important, I just find myself strangely juxtaposed when it comes specifically to higher education. To properly and openly teach or study any subject at that level, the flow of information has to be fast and - for want of a better term - free from moral limitations no matter how trivial they may seem. Constantly assessing and second guessing material is a stumbling block... It slows everything down.

Not every subject is suitable for every student, no matter how academically able they are. That just needs to be accepted. There's a reason the dropout rate for med students spikes around the time that they start using real cadavers, for example. In the same way that you wouldn't become a paramedic if you were specifically distressed by blood / death, and you wouldn't become a firefighter if you were afraid of fire.

So if you're studying, say, criminal law you should expect to encounter material related to sexual assault at some point by default. It should simply be obvious that its a possibility / probability. A likewise for most subjects... I sort of feel like the responsibility lies with any potential student to understand the topics they're committing to study before they start? I can't think of really any realistic situation in which someone in an academic subject should be shocked or surprised when uncomfortable material comes up without a specific warning at the time :shrug:.