____________________________________
In their efforts to ensure students feel safe while learning, some universities in the USA and UK risk becoming helicopter-parent caricatures… warning archaeology students that old bones might upset them; warning theology students that crucifixion can be gory; warning veterinary students that, indeed, they will be working with dead animals. In other words… d’oh!
The Telegraph reports that Glasgow University took it upon itself to warn theology students that in studying the Bible, they’d see material that “contains graphic scenes of the crucifixion”. Mind you, these are adults or near adults who chose to study the Bible. This isn’t, presumably, because they don’t know how the story ends. The university also warned veterinary students that they’d encounter and work with dead animals and that those studying “contemporary society” would discuss illness and violence. One wonders how either of those announcements could come as a surprise, unless the university launched a campaign to focus on attracting all those prospective students who were left behind because they live under rocks. Glasgow University defended itself through a spokesman, who said:
We have an absolute duty of care to all of our students and where it’s felt course material may cause potential upset or concern warnings may be given.
Glasgow University isn’t the only educational institution taking precautions, on the off chance their students simply picked a major out of a hat, without knowing anything about the subject. the Daily Mail and others reported that Those who choose to study forensic science at Strathclyde University, also in Glasgow, are warned in person “at the beginning of some lectures where sensitive images, involving blood patterns, crime scenes and bodies… are in the presentation”. Surely, students studying forensic science would revolt if they weren’t shown gory crime scenes?
However, there’s more. At Stirling University, archaeology students are warned that they may find old preserved bodies in their archaeological context “a bit gruesome”. In the gender studies department, they’ve simply thrown up their hands. The university explained to the Daily Mail:
We can’t anticipate or exclude the possibility that you may encounter material which is triggering and we urge that you take all necessary precautions to look after yourself in and around the programme.
Last year, the Independent reported on law students at Oxford University being warned ahead of potentially “distressing” lectures. Law lecturer Laura Hoyano criticised the practice, telling the Mail Online:
[Lawyers] have to deal with things that are difficult. We can’t remove sexual offences from the criminal law syllabus… obviously.
The trigger warning debate remains heated across the pond in the USA. In 2015, a group of students at Columbia University wrote an op-ed calling for a trigger warning for Greek mythology, for example. Four students, members of Columbia’s Multicultural Affairs Advisory Board, wrote for the school newspaper:
Ovid’s Metamorphoses is a fixture of [literature humanities], but like so many texts in the Western canon, it contains triggering and offensive material that marginalises student identities in the classroom. These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of colour, or a student from a low-income background.
The University of Chicago pushed back last year, in its letter to the incoming freshmen class of fall 2016. Dean of Students John Ellison wrote:
Our commitment to academic freedom means that we don’t support so-called trigger warnings; we don’t cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we don’t condone the creation of intellectual “safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.
The note was polarising, with many applauding the university’s commitment to intellectual freedom whilst others said he’d misunderstood humane efforts to minimise trauma. Feminist writer and lecturer Naomi Wolf thought that concern can go too far. She told the Sunday Times:
Trauma from sexual or other assault and abuse is very real, and “triggers” are real for victims of abuse, but the place to process or deal with survivor triggers is with a trained therapist in a counsellor’s office, and not in a classroom or university context.
8 January 2017
Sputnik International
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201701081049380852-UK-unis-trigger-warning-happy/
Bishop Lazar: “There’s No Reason Why the Taxpayer Should Finance a Religion That They Don’t Belong To”
Tags: Christian, Christian ethics, Christianity, church-state relations, church-state separation, Eastern Orthodox Church, Education, ethic, ethical orientation, ethics, Lazar Puhalo, moral, moral stance, morality, morals, OCA, Orthodox Church in America, Orthodoxy, political commentary, politics
________________________
Recently, someone asked me if I think the government should in any way, including school vouchers, support sectarian schools. The answer is absolutely not. There’s no reason why the taxpayer should finance a religion that they don’t belong to, or in fact be coerced to support any religion at all. Vouchers or any form of forced taxpayer support is coercive since the taxpayer has no choice.
Most sectarian schools shouldn’t even have accreditation. There’s a separation between church and state and it should be a firewall. There’s absolutely no excuse for the state to be involved in religion at all. If a sectarian school isn’t teaching pure science, genuine science, and unadulterated history, then, it shouldn’t even have accreditation, and we should inspect it regularly to maintain its accreditation. If that sectarian school teaches so-called “creation science” even as if it were an alternative to real science, we should absolutely not even accredit it, and anyone who completed its course should have to take an alternative education before being admitted to higher education.
It’s time to end the fraud of sectarian education and the government absolutely shouldn’t in any way support it. It isn’t education, it’s mental programming, and it’s child abuse when they teach fraudulent science. Betsy De Vos doesn’t even want these schools to be accountable for what they teach. This is mental abuse of children, we commonly call it brainwashing, but it isn’t education, and the government has no business in any form involving itself in religion. Each religion should support its own agencies, and not turn to the government for bailouts. The government is responsible for valid public education and not for some form of religious propaganda. If you want to send your child to a special school you should pay for it yourself, the taxpayer shouldn’t do it for you.
7 June 2018
Vladika Lazar Puhalo
Facebook