The Student Room Group

Should Lectures Be Censored?

Recently one of our senior Lecturers, Pam Lowe wrote an article for the New Statesman on why subjects particularly in social sciences must not be censored, having been taught by Pam myself during my undergraduate degree I wholly agree with her, but what do you guys think? Would you like your degrees to be purged of sensitive topics or do you want them to touch on dark subjects that can be part of the human condition? There is an extra from the article below:


Pam Lowe
The world is not necessarily a happy place. Social scientists like myself know this well, thanks to the huge amount of time we spend examining difficult issues such as racism, gendered violence and poverty in minute detail. These issues are a core part of our teaching and learning in universities, meaning that we expect our students to face these head-on as part of their studies. But a new trend is emerging in higher education of which British universities must steer clear trigger warnings.

“Trigger warnings” are based on the idea that people can have adverse emotional or psychological reactions in response to potential reminders of past trauma, particularly from violent events. Clearly, this can happen, but it is not universally the case. Even for people that do experience flashbacks or other negative reactions, what may or may not “trigger” a response is highly individualised and is not necessarily generalisable."
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Aston University
why subjects particularly in social sciences must not be censored


Do I think that lecturers should be able to use violent explicit pornography in their lectures? Do I think that academics should be able to teach the violent overthrow of democracy? Do I think professors should be able to teach bomb making techniques? Do I think tutors should be able to run courses on racial hygiene?

Being an academic does not exempt one from the norms that other members of civilised society must obey.
**** censorship of any kind under any circumstance. If things get too real for certain students, they know where the door is.
Reply 3
Who cares
I'm with tertius on this. University is a time for broadening minds, and approaching subjects in an academic setting that may not on the outside world be common-say, but a line's a line, and there are some things that just shouldn't be discussed.
Original post by nulli tertius
Do I think that lecturers should be able to use violent explicit pornography in their lectures? Do I think that academics should be able to teach the violent overthrow of democracy? Do I think professors should be able to teach bomb making techniques? Do I think tutors should be able to run courses on racial hygiene?

Being an academic does not exempt one from the norms that other members of civilised society must obey.


Pam seems to be suggesting that lecturers might avoid challenging/unpleasant subjects in order to boost their student satisfaction rating http://www.newstatesman.com/education/2014/10/why-uk-universities-must-steer-clear-trigger-warnings

IMO social sciences teaching probably isn't doing its job unless it shakes up a few comfortable, preconceived ideas among its students.

FWIW I think you'd almost certainly be able to knock up a lethal improvised bomb after doing Electrical Engineering (probably GCSE electronics would suffice), you could teach that invading Iraq in '03 might have helped violent islamist groups more than it harmed them (which seems like a defensible point of view) without running an indoctrination programme.
Original post by Joinedup
Pam seems to be suggesting that lecturers might avoid challenging/unpleasant subjects in order to boost their student satisfaction rating http://www.newstatesman.com/education/2014/10/why-uk-universities-must-steer-clear-trigger-warnings


What Pam is doing is taking a situation where it is wrong for academics to self-censor or for universities to censor but then Aston's PR dept is trying to draw the conclusion that there should be no censorship of academics. It is a common technique in battles about freedom of expression to extrapolate from a favourable case and this is an issue rather close to Aston http://www.studentrights.org.uk/article/2026/aston_university_islamic_society_invites_uthman_lateef


IMO social sciences teaching probably isn't doing its job unless it shakes up a few comfortable, preconceived ideas among its students.


There is difference between teaching something and teaching about something. A UK politics course will teach about Marxism but it doesn't teach Marxism ie it doesn't adopt a Marxist perspective to teach about Marxism and everything else. The subject of study is not internalised.

Academic censorship is generally not a question about what may be studied but the extent to which teaching about that subject is allowed to be or prohibited from being internalised.

In the first example I gave, there is no problem about running a module on pornography. However, it would not be appropriate to use pornography as a way of teaching say Romeo and Juliet. It would not e appropriate to internalise pornography as a teaching aid.

The speaker invited to Aston is talking about extremism. He is an extremist giving his view on the world. His extremism is internalised.

FWIW I think you'd almost certainly be able to knock up a lethal improvised bomb after doing Electrical Engineering (probably GCSE electronics would suffice), you could teach that invading Iraq in '03 might have helped violent islamist groups more than it harmed them (which seems like a defensible point of view) without running an indoctrination programme.


Probably, and anyone who can can draw or photograph the human form can produce pornography but that doesn't address the issue.
That's not part of an academic course, it's an event organised by the ISOC (from 18 months ago). Pam appears to be writing about something different.

hadn't spotted that one but I'm generally aware of the baleful role ISOCs have in promoting intolerance and on campus.
Yes, Pam is talking only about the approved lecture content by universities. Our clubs and societies such as ISOC belong our Student's Union which is an independent charity which we have no control over.
Original post by Aston University
Yes, Pam is talking only about the approved lecture content by universities. Our clubs and societies such as ISOC belong our Student's Union which is an independent charity which we have no control over.


Hmm London Met seem to have managed to ban that hate preacher, if they can do it why can't Aston?
Original post by nulli tertius

There is difference between teaching something and teaching about something. A UK politics course will teach about Marxism but it doesn't teach Marxism ie it doesn't adopt a Marxist perspective to teach about Marxism and everything else. The subject of study is not internalised.


In theory you are right. In practice though...

Have you ever been on a Marxist history or sociology course? It's quite common to drift into promoting Marxism. Even more strikingly, the vast majority of economics courses teach from a Chicago school point of view. Even if though don't say it specifically, the students know by the end the Chicago way is right and others wrong.

In 2 of my lectures I cover rape, murder, abortion, infanticide, incest and polygamy. No need for any explicit pictures, but there is a need to go into detail about these practices. Thankfully my students seem to enjoy these emotive topics, and there's no hint of censorship from the university.

If you were teaching a media studies course on pro-life advertisements, you may have need to show explicit pictures of aborted fetuses. Criminology courses may well have explicit accounts of victims of crimes and so on. As long as there is sufficient warning to the students, the chance to opt out, and review of the material by a committee if it's extreme, there shouldn't be any restriction.

TBH I haven't come across any squeamishness in UK universities around this. I would assume it's more of an issue in the USA. Student satisfaction here seems to hinge on being told exactly how to answer an exam question, and the course not being too hard.
Original post by nulli tertius
Do I think that academics should be able to teach the violent overthrow of democracy?

So you're with the Mail on Ralph Miliband?

Do I think professors should be able to teach bomb making techniques?

How to make an atomic bomb was the topic of at least one lecture I have attended at a British university.

Though for the less ambitious, there's Imperial College's various engineering offerings; I believe they even own a licensed site for practical instruction of students in the use of explosives.

---

I think the basic problem is that:

Do I think that academics should be able to teach the violent overthrow of democracy?

Do I think tutors should be able to run courses on racial hygiene?

Are contradictory criticisms. You think that academics should be expected to promote or at least acquiesce to some political ideas (e.g. democracy), but never promote and possibly explicitly reject other political ideas (e.g. 'racial hygiene'). What is the rule that determines which belong in the first box and which the second? How does it differ from similar rules adopted by Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Observatory
So you're with the Mail on Ralph Miliband?


With someone like Miliband (and others) their freedom to behave as they do is inversely proportional to their credibility. The state tolerates people advocating its overthrow who are incapable of bringing it about.



Are contradictory criticisms. You think that academics should be expected to promote or at least acquiesce to some political ideas (e.g. democracy), but never promote and possibly explicitly reject other political ideas (e.g. 'racial hygiene'). What is the rule that determines which belong in the first box and which the second? How does it differ from similar rules adopted by Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia?


I set out that rule at the outset:-

Being an academic does not exempt one from the norms that other members of civilised society must obey.


What people may say and do is a lumpy and not altogether coherent thing. However, being an academic or being an academic institution does not give a free pass from the ties that bind others.
Original post by nulli tertius
With someone like Miliband (and others) their freedom to behave as they do is inversely proportional to their credibility. The state tolerates people advocating its overthrow who are incapable of bringing it about.

I smell a little hindsight bias here. Do you think it was incredible to suggest in 1975 that the USSR might win the Cold War? Communism wasn't the emasculated strain it is today.

Even today I consider a communist revolution much more likely than a Nazi one.

I set out that rule at the outset:-



What people may say and do is a lumpy and not altogether coherent thing. However, being an academic or being an academic institution does not give a free pass from the ties that bind others.

These rules have of course existed in all societies, and have been different in the past, e.g. it was once not done to criticise the catholic church, to criticise the reformed church, to advocate atheism or legalised homosexuality, etc. One can defend the GULAG as just punishment for breaking the civilised ties that bind society, etc.

I think there is an academic ideal - which is to an extent a social ideal also - that academics should be allowed to say and think anything. If this is not true it is difficult to justify a state-funded academia as being different to an official propaganda apparatus.
(edited 9 years ago)
Completely agree. I think this "trigger warning" nonsense has turned into an absolute joke to be honest. You shouldn't be censoring or dressing up science because some people are unable to deal with reality.
Reply 15
nah, but lectures with questionable content should have warnings.
Reply 16
Original post by nulli tertius
Do I think that lecturers should be able to use violent explicit pornography in their lectures? Do I think that academics should be able to teach the violent overthrow of democracy? Do I think professors should be able to teach bomb making techniques? Do I think tutors should be able to run courses on racial hygiene?
You are confusing indoctrination with education.

They are all valid subjects for study in the right context.

No, no censorship in adult education.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
Do I think that lecturers should be able to use violent explicit pornography in their lectures? Do I think that academics should be able to teach the violent overthrow of democracy? Do I think professors should be able to teach bomb making techniques? Do I think tutors should be able to run courses on racial hygiene?

Being an academic does not exempt one from the norms that other members of civilised society must obey.


On the contrary, an academic approach to examining the dark side of the human condition could be argued as the only thing that keeps society together. These dark, sometimes macabre subjects can be scrutinised in excruciating detail while simultaneously maintaining an appropriate distance and objectivity to the exercise.

As always, it always depends on the lecturer. I'm fortunate enough to have a great lecturer that doesn't shy away from uncomfortable topics while ensuring that students from all backgrounds and spectrums are included and engaged with topics that may affect them.
Original post by Simes
You are confusing indoctrination with education.

They are all valid subjects for study in the right context.

No, no censorship in adult education.


Which you will see is the point I made in post 7.
Original post by askew116
On the contrary, an academic approach to examining the dark side of the human condition could be argued as the only thing that keeps society together. These dark, sometimes macabre subjects can be scrutinised in excruciating detail while simultaneously maintaining an appropriate distance and objectivity to the exercise.



But freedom from censorship means the freedom not to maintain an appropriate distance and objectivity.

Quick Reply