Judith
Shulevitz wrote a piece in the New
York Times about how across universities everywhere we’re taking people’s
concerns about triggering too seriously. I guess we’re just being too
protective. Shulevitz sees it as being in college, but still being under some
kind of protective blanket. Her real problem seems to be “safe spaces” which
she likens to real world trigger warnings. For her trigger warnings on the
syllabus is some kind of personal affront to higher education.
Like many before
her Shulevitz doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. She seems to think
a warning on the top of a syllabus or a safe space for students to go when a
debate on sexual assault is occurring on campus somehow means there will be no
discussion. That’s not the case; instead it informs people what they are
getting themselves into. She says, “But the notion that ticklish conversations
must be scrubbed clean of controversy has a way of leaking out and spreading.
Once you designate some spaces as safe, you imply that the rest are unsafe. It
follows that they should be made safer.” What the what?
This is one of
those false arguments. One does not lead to the other anymore than any slippery
slope arguments. Being aware of what a discussion is about doesn’t mean no one
is going to have the discussion. But I’m straight up saying things can be made
safer and that the places that aren’t designated safe spaces aren’t safe.
That’s why we have a rape epidemic on campuses. I also think we can make things
safer by addressing why rape occurs and how to prevent it. This is logic,
things are unsafe, one in five women are sexually assaulted. Hell, I’d argue
safe spaces aren’t always safe, see that male feminist on the west coast who
was sexually coercing and assaulting women?
This isn’t about
hurting people’s feelings which is what Shulevitz and one of her sources Adam
Shapiro assert. But these are people who don’t understand trauma. Trauma from
sexual assault or homophobic violence (the examples in the piece) can lead to
PTSD, which means you can have a physical reaction to a trigger. For example, a
simple action might make someone feel as though they are under attack essentially triggering a panic attack. That is the point of trigger warnings. However,
Shulevitz sees this as hyper sensitive and “self-infantalizing”, which leaves
the students unprepared for life. I think creating a ruling class of
over educated un-empathetic bastards is more harmful, but hey I’m overly
sensitive, ask anyone.
Taking into
account how someone could react doesn’t mean you can’t say something. You just
have to own it upfront. So people write victim-blaming pieces will be
accountable and can’t just shrug their shoulders and say people are too
sensitive. Responsibility and accountability. No one is being censored by some
magical censor fairy.
