General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: University of Chicago Tells Incoming Students: Don't Expect Safe Spaces or Trigger Warnings [View all]Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)Though history is written by the winners, a lecture on history usually includes facts even if those are facts about what historians agree or disagree on (like the cause of a war). But what about novels? Those are made-up stories where authors aim to have an emotional as well as thought-provoking effect. And sometimes, it's hard to justify forcing a student to read a made-up-story that disturbs them. I was a teacher of English. I gave my students the book "The Haunting of Hill House" by Shirley Jackson. One student came up and said she absolutely could not read it. She believed in ghosts, quite literally, and though she knew it was a made-up story, knew Shirley Jackson was a reputable author and that the aim was to discuss the metaphors and themes...she just could not read it.
I had a choice. I could fail her for not reading the book and writing up the assignment on it, or I could give her an alternative book. In the end, I gave her an alternative book. Because I saw no reason why she couldn't learn what I was trying to teach (metaphors, themes, literary analysis) from another book. It didn't have to be one that she could not and would not read. So, no, we should not sanitize history any more than we should underplay the facts of climate change. But education is not and should not be one-size-fits-all. I'm not advocating lying or softening or letting students get out of eating their vitamin-healthy greens. Bu the aim of a class, be it to give students a realistic view of the American Civil War or get them to analyze literature, doesn't have to be done in only one way. Achieving the aim is the goal, not forcing every student to learn it in the same way.