"Being offended is part of the process of education"

[RedToothBrush]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74z8l8vkx3o

Students should be ready to be shocked and offended at university, according to the man in charge of ensuring free speech on campuses.

Arif Ahmed, from the Office for Students (OfS), which regulates universities, told the BBC that exposure to views which students might find offensive was "part of the process of education".

It comes as the OfS published guidance for universities in England on how a new law, designed to protect free speech, will work when it comes into force from August.

Universities had requested clarity from the OfS on how to best uphold freedom of speech, after the University of Sussex was fined £585,000 for failing to do so in March.

I heard this on BBC radio news. I thought the newsreader sounded incredulous at what he was having to read out loud.

About bloody time.

They discussed this on the World at One radio programme. They interviewed Professor Ann Phoenix who was extremely impressive. She is very positive about the guidance, although she pointed out how entrenched the 'no debate' attitude was across higher education. She was so eloquent, helped by the fact that the interview was quite long for the programme. It's about 27 minutes in. There's a NUS representative on first:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002dpng?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

I am incredulous that this has been necessary, but I welcome it. Being offended isn't harmful and, as an English graduate, I saw it as central to my three years of university study. Where's the debate and critical thinking if everyone agrees?

It makes me think of those trigger warning signs they sometimes have at theatres now.

Surely this is setting some people up to think they won't be able to cope?

People need to be educated that, actually, they can cope with things that happen in practice very well. They can deal with any "offence". It's an essential learning tool. To discover for yourself rather than someone else presupposing you're going to be cowering under your seat at any minute.

Why is "Being offended is part of the process of education" in quotes? That's not what is said in the article, and I don't believe many people would hold that view.

What they said was that being exposed to views you might find offensive was "part of the process of education". Taking offense is a choice. Being offended isn't an inevitable part of becoming educated.

Have you read The Coddling of the American Mind? Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt (hope I’ve spelled those right). Full of research that very much supports what you say - that telling people they might be scared or offended by something they’re about to see or hear or read makes them less, not more resilient, and less, not more, able to cope with the world.

When trigger warnings started being introduced at theatre box offices, I asked if people pull out of buying tickets when they hear there is nudity, violence etc. The answer was yes. It's sad that people don't want to be challenged.

As part of my degree we were deliberately shown BBC footage that was never broadcast in order to have a discussion over censorship in the media and discuss editorial decision making and gatekeeping to 'the truth'.

The footage was of an event during a war.

Now, all that gatekeeping has gone due to social media but it was an interesting debate to be had and we've now got updated things to consider in terms of the reasons why people post things and what they decide to filter out.

At the time it was a really useful lesson. It HAD to be grim and offensive to make the point. You wouldn't broadcast it (and still wouldn't) but these are things that kids might see daily on social media unless we decide to be the gatekeeper.

In history, we were taught about the importance of understanding your enemy and their thought processes.

How can they actually be teaching anything, if they are so afraid of offending. Its utterly ridicilous.

The worse tea for some to drink is a cup of reality.

I agree that being offended is a choice. My area of work at the moment involves working with people who need support with their mental health and I hear some really shocking views. They are shocking but I choose not to be offended. I wouldn’t be able to function in my line of work if I did.

Haidt's work is fantastic and sheds light on how we have a younger generation, some of who are unable to manage every day discussions, conflicts and political differences without needing therapy. A life spent online / on phones mean so many are totally removed from normal social interactions hence the massive rise in anxiety / mental health problems and - as seen in the toddler like tantrums on hearing that other's have valid opinions and rights - find it hard to function in a democracy.

It makes me think of those trigger warning signs they sometimes have at theatres now.

Does the Bible come with trigger warnings ?

I don't think being upset at the sight of violence "not wanting to be challenged" 🙄

I want to be challenged. I don't want to.see gratuitous violence or uncomfortable sex scenes. What exactly do you learn from watching people get beaten or fucking on screen that is soooooo important we challenge ourselves to watch it?

There is no challenge in violence for the sake of violence or sex for the sake of sex. It's the context in which those things occur, on a stage or on screen, that provides the challenge. The challenge of the simulated anal rape scene in Howard Brenton's 'Romans in Britain', for example, is about the violence of occupation and was resonant in the early '80s because sectarian violence in Northern Ireland was a present part of national life in the UK.

What exactly is the "challenge"? It just sounds distressing to watch to me. We can learn about history with out having to watch sexual violence.

It doesn't make people small minded or unwilling to be challenged to avoid distressing content.

I agree with @Silverbelles . It's gratuitous, voyeuristic, and unnecessary. The idea that someone is more cultured or superior for watching such things is ridiculous.

Theatre is a commercial enterprise. They're trying to make money. Shock factor can generate publicity, it can be a response to voyeuristic demands and social dysfunction in order to create what will sell. That is, to make as much money as possible.

It's not some noble cause to sink to the lowest level imaginable.

Good writers can tell a story without nudity, and without simulating sex and violence. Nobody should feel judged for declining to pay money to watch actors debase themselves.

Fostering free speech and tolerance for hearing dissent in a university setting is completely different from people not wanting to watch simulated rape for entertainment.