> Sadly, far too many academics have responded to the pressure to protect students from disturbing ideas by censoring themselves.
“Protecting” students from “disturbing” ideas is an act of censorship in the first place. The choices for academics who don’t agree with this censorship are simple - to quit their job or to secure themselves by not covering some topics. Or probably to be fired (and publicly lashed) for standing their ground - as we have seen has happened many times already.
The whole situation is a total disaster and absolute disgrace for the modern educational system. Being traumatized is a part of being human. It’s a part of a life of an adult. It is a good thing, if one gets these traumas in a precise, measured and indirect way - from books and lectures. It’s a process of education. If those students are not ready for that, maybe they made a mistake to become students in the first place?
Note that this is about trigger warnings, and therefore teaching more than research.
It also hasn't really aged well. I remember this criticism was far more prominent a few years back, including on HN.
What happened since? Trigger warning were renamed "CN", for "content note", I believe. We also got ourselves some actual problems, so nobody cares about these things anymore.
Popular perception of these warnings also became less scandalised with their increasing popularity: first, because people note that the abundance of "CNs" they come across mean precisely the opposite of what was feared: it's a sign that people aren't censoring themselves, but instead using a commonly accepted practice to mitigate any possible negative effects without the need to self-censor.
And here's the second misunderstanding: "CNs" aren't really meant to make people leave the room or not read the book, and the examples from these articles were pretty rare back then and are almost unheard of now.
They are, instead, an acknowledgement that I, the speaker, realise that this may be a sensitive topic for you. By flagging this up-front, I show that harming you is not my intention, and that I will be supportive if any issue arises.
This understanding defuses the situation. Because it's not usually texts about the Holocaust that are traumatising for jews. It's people using those texts and that history to hurt them anew.
There is a growing trend of censorship and self-censorship. Far from enjoying controversy for its own sake, it seems clear to me that open, civilized debate is healthy and indeed essencial.
The attitude that "some things are not to be discussed/mentioned" is akin to religious dogma, more at home in the European Dark Ages than the 21st century.
Sometimes I think that that colleges and universities should accept students after they sign consent (kinda like medical consent): I understand that classes take sensitive subjects and i Agree that being exposed to information about disturbing historical circumstances is necessary for learning and graduating