Search News


Browse Archives

News

Yes, Please Offend Me (But Thanks for Checking)

November 28, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

In an era in which seemingly anything can offend anyone, one professor at the University of Idaho is attempting to stay one step ahead by asking film students to sign a “statement of understanding” acknowledging the potentially offensive or repugnant content they’ll be viewing.

Dennis West, a professor of film and Spanish, said he thinks the statement, distributed on the first day of his film classes, acts as a check to ensure unsophisticated undergraduates know what they’re getting into. But others question the implications of a practice they believe to be well-intentioned but risky – should faculty be asking students to sign on to facing controversial subject matter?

“I guess I started to get more freshmen who would come to me and say, ‘Well gee, I can’t look at any film that has violence in it or nudity. So I developed a statement of understanding so people know ahead of time certain issues will be intellectually examined in some of these films, such as poverty, slavery, sexual themes, punishment and murder,” said West.

“Film is an extraordinarily powerful medium,” continued West, who counts among his visual texts Night and Fog, a documentary on the Holocaust that depicts the liberation of a concentration camp, and A Clockwork Orange, which features a rape sequence choreographed to “Singin’ in the Rain.”

“If you can’t bear to look at footage of the opening up of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp that shows bulldozers pushing human corpses, then maybe this course is not for you.”

West’s practice may represent a first – “a somewhat troubling first” – in how faculty members handle teaching controversial subject matter, said Jonathan Knight, director of the program in academic freedom and tenure at the American Association of University Professors. “What does it mean to say to a person, ‘Sign this statement saying you might be offended?’ I would be worried that this opens the door slightly more than is typical ... to submit sensitive material for pre-judgment by students.”

Knight added that such a policy could potentially “yield authority to the students as to what should be taught in the course,” more so than would be the case when students choose on their own to drop a course or submit negative evaluations. He also worried that students who sign the document might feel that they have waived their rights to debate the academic value of certain films: “It all seems rather odd,” Knight said. “I should think that the professor’s laudable goal of letting the students know what they’re getting in for could be well-accomplished by just describing the content in the syllabus rather than having them sign a statement that raises implications about the authority responsible for the course.”

But West, who doesn’t ask his literature students to sign a similar statement because he considers film images to be particularly powerful, said he doesn’t worry about whether he’s compromising his own academic freedom by asking students to sign on to a course’s content: “I select the films,” he said. “I don’t see it as an issue of academic freedom; I see it more as a statement to students from day one that we’ll be looking at potentially controversial subject matter.”

The statement is voluntary, and so far in the few years since he introduced it, no student has declined to sign and he’s had very few drops. Several of West’s colleagues have requested copies of the statement, he said, but he does not know if any of them have adopted it.

“What he’s doing strikes me as reasonable but I don’t know if I would want it adopted as a general policy,” said Don Crowley, a professor of political science at the University of Idaho and vice chair of the Faculty Council.

“The idea that students have to give clearance before they confront a difficult issue is not a particularly good idea for higher education,” added Crowley. “But I think given the nature of the class that Dennis is teaching and the fact that he’s showing films that at least have a high probability that someone will be bothered, getting this advanced clearance doesn’t strike me as problematic.”

“But I wouldn’t like to see it generalized.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Yes, Please Offend Me (But Thanks for Checking)

  • offense
  • Posted by Larry on November 28, 2006 at 7:15am EST
  • As I think all parties are aware, there is no right not to be offended, so his waiver is more a political statement and a way of telling students to “cut the crap.”

    I don’t know where students get the idea that “offense” somehow allows them to avoid thinking about things, or participating in a course. But, quite frankly, colleges have not done enough to dispel this notion on day one.

  • Offensive classroom material
  • Posted by feudi pandola on November 28, 2006 at 8:01am EST
  • This is a bad, bad idea done, I'm sure, with the very best of intentions. I recall watching "Clockwork Orange" as a young man and being shocked at the level of gratuitious violence in that film. In today's world, that film would get a PG rating...and that's the point isn't it.

  • An Alternative to the Waiver
  • Posted by Stephen on November 28, 2006 at 8:15am EST
  • I have addressed the issue by including the following statement at the beginning of the syllabus for my Religion and Human Sexuality course:

    WARNING: This course deals with human sexuality. Lectures, discussions, class materials, and videos may contain sexually explicit depictions and discussions that some students could find troubling or offensive.

    If students have concerns, they are forewarned and can either drop the course or discuss those concerns with me.

  • Informed Decisions
  • Posted by FCP on November 28, 2006 at 8:46am EST
  • I see two (among many) issues that are impacting higher education and these types of actions. 1) Students need to be informed about the content of course so they can make an informed decision. Course descriptions are no longer adequate (or long enough) and how many really read a syllabus. So...we often spend our first class explaining the syllabus/course in detail. Can a student find out about the course before hand and not have to spend the day rearranging schedules & courses when they drop. 2) The rising and troubling consumer mentality of students and the general public concerning higher education. If I do not like what you are teaching or saying, I punish you with bad evaluations or complaining to the Dean or Provost.

  • Posted by Kay on November 28, 2006 at 8:51am EST
  • Speaking as one who grew up during the McCarthy witch hunts, which in my home state of Florida extended into academia due to the unflagging efforts of a state senator named Charlie Johns, I think this professor is wise to state up front what students will see and to get their formal acknowledgment that yes, they have been informed. In his place, I would do the same. This practice is a sensible and self-protective response to the erosion of academic freedom -- not a cause of it.

  • Fair Notice
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on November 28, 2006 at 9:16am EST
  • I'm grateful for this article coming along at this particular time. I'm going to be teaching a brand new lit class next semester with some potentially "offensive" material: explicit sex, drug use, etc. I had actually considered some sort of waiver, but have settled on a statement in my syllabus. This decision is confirmed by the discussion in the article. Thanks.

    And FCP? If it's true that "hardly anyone reads the syllabus," what sort of information will be read? A student who does not read the syllabus is not participating with even minimal competence in his or her own education. In any case, if it's in the syllabus, the student is responsible for it & has been given fair notice of the course content, structure, expectations, etc.

  • It ends in law school
  • Posted by Larry on November 28, 2006 at 9:16am EST
  • Strangely, by the time kids hit law school, even the most vocal “I am offended by everything” person generally buckles down and starts working without worrying whether they are offended by a description of a gang rape (whether in music or prose).

  • Posted by Sandy on November 28, 2006 at 9:50am EST
  • Many people confuse "troubled" with "offended". I would be troubled and uncomfortable watching a rape scene and discussing it because it is a troubling topic. I would be offended if people in the class cheered or enjoyed watching such violence against another. Some might be troubled by discussions about the Nazis; but they would be offended if people in the class made insensitive remarks.

    The college experience is about making people think... not to hear a professor's viewpoint and it be written in stone; but to allow students to explore their own thoughts on subjects and hear other viewpoints. Teenagers live in a self-absorbed world. The college experience is about finding out that the world doesn't revolve around them and that other people might see things differently. The college experience should expand a person's mind. That can only be done in an atmosphere of open, respectful discussion.

    My only concern would be that the waiver might give some professors the idea that they can push the limit and show material that isn't really necessary to the discussion but provides a "shock and awe" reaction that a power-hungry, warped professor might enjoy.

  • So?
  • Posted by Jessie , Student at Villa Julie College on November 28, 2006 at 9:50am EST
  • As a student, I find nothing wrong with this. This professor is merely protecting himself from those who complain about the content of a course because they don't like it, or simply because they don't like him and use his content as an excuse (which from my experience as a student, happens most often in complaints of a teacher). If a student tries to get him in trouble, stating the material in his class as the reason for their conflict, he has a backup that shows the student was warned in the beginning when they had a chance to drop the class.

    However, if this teacher is using the form to force students to watch things that make them uncomfortable, then I do find a problem in that. It is ok to have such a waiver to simply warn the students in advance, but only if the students still have the option to decline to watch something if it really bothers them (in which case the student and teacher should discuss the problem and find an alternative way for the student to learn the point).

    Obviously if a student takes offense to everything and says that they absolutely cannot stand to watch anything in the class, then there is no point for them to be in the class, and the student should be encouraged to drop it. But a student who signs the waiver should still be able to perhaps step out during an uncomfortable scene or two.

  • CYA
  • Posted by PissPoorProf on November 28, 2006 at 10:10am EST
  • I see no erosion of academic freedom—neither on the professor nor the student side—in the signing of a waiver for adult content. In this litigious age, it is a smart level-setting of expectations. The prof is assured that the graphic nature of some content is coming, and the students know and understand this as well.

    Will the CYA cow dissent? There are far more powerful tools to cow dissent in the classroom (profs issue grades), so that doesn’t seem valid. Will CYA erode content? It seems to allow some “edgy” content by being up-front about it. Why not just note it in the syllabus (the class contract)? Sure, do it there too. Two CYAs are better than one. I wouldn’t, though, feel that a line in the syllabus would have the same level of sign-off as, well, an actual sign-off. A syllabus presents a passive sign off. I prefer the more active approach.

    Good work prof.

  • Posted by DCP on November 28, 2006 at 10:10am EST
  • When I was teaching full-time, I mentally rated my courses using the MPAA system as my guidelines. If a course featured materials that I felt might offend the institution's generally conservative students or certain elements of the faculty and administration(something at a strong 'R' or worse), I included an advisory in my course description and repeated my warning on the first day of class.

    The registrar told me that I was the only person in the institution's history that s/he knew to do that, but at least I did not have students taking my courses who were unaware that some of the films featured violent and/or sexually explicit content and that some of the texts would deal with subjects and themes often not discussed in polite company. This also worked to my advantage by drawing students who were interested in pursuing something beyond the departmental and institutional norms and scaring off those who had decided that I was Satan's first cousin.

    Therefore, I don't view the waiver as giving students control over course content; rather, I view it as a tool for presenting exactly what you want to present and informing prospective students that they have a choice to make and must live with that choice's consequences.

  • Lo! How the mighty have Fall'n
  • Posted by J. Madison Davis , Professor at U. Of Oklahoma on November 28, 2006 at 10:25am EST
  • Does it strike anyone as terribly sad that film is a source of "powerful images," but literature (that impotent and irrelevent art form) needs no waiver?

  • Posted by KLE at Parkland College on November 28, 2006 at 11:21am EST
  • My students sign a general acknowledgement at the beginning of the semester that they have read and understand the course syllabus, as it is the course "contract." In a situation such as that of the film course in question, a statement could then be put into the course syllabus. The legalities are thus covered, and there is no implication that students have the power to influence the cirriculum.

  • STEPPING ON TAIL FEATHERS
  • Posted by Larry Gillis on November 28, 2006 at 12:30pm EST
  • Informed consent? Absolutely.

    I don't want some hypersensitive professional victim whining later on that I stepped on their tail feathers in some obscure way.

    I'm a reasonably sensitive person anyway. In fact, I am the most reasonable person I know.

    Bon appetit. Thanks once again for an informative article.

  • Posted by KLE at Parkland College on November 28, 2006 at 12:31pm EST
  • correction to the above posting--_curriculum_.

  • Precedent?
  • Posted by A.N.T. on November 28, 2006 at 7:45pm EST
  • My concern has nothing to do with the debate over whether students might be offended, and what that says about our system (although I suppose in its own way it is an interesting question). Rather, I have my doubts as to what using this method might imply for those who choose NOT to implement it. If this practice becomes common, does that render professors who do not use it at a higher risk of complaint or litigation?

  • Posted by Mona Pelkey on November 28, 2006 at 7:45pm EST
  • Let's not try to overthink this...the professor provides information about course content in order to avoid misunderstandings with students later, and the students sign to certify that they have received the information. Good! Why do we have to look for controversy here?

  • My version
  • Posted by Jonathan Dresner on November 29, 2006 at 4:30am EST
  • Advisory/DisclaimerHistory is about real peoples, diverse cultures, interesting theories, strongly held belief systems, complex situations and often-dramatic actions. In certain contexts, this information may be disturbing. Such is the nature of historical study.

    That appears on all my syllabi, usually on the first page. I adapted it from a colleague in Religion.

    I do think there's something disturbing about it, though. Two things, actually: the increasingly legalistic/contractual nature of syllabi and other course materials, and the "freedom from psychic pain" which more and more people -- especially students -- seem to be adopting as a basic consumer right.

  • Right Frame of Mind
  • Posted by Jayendra Singh , Counselor at IMT, Ghaziabad, INDIA on November 29, 2006 at 4:30am EST
  • I agree with Prof. West, today a student needs to be in the right frame of mind befroe being exposed to the study environment.The method of instruction can be made a little softer in form of contents of study so as to mentally prepare the student community for the subject.

  • response to ANT
  • Posted by Larry on November 29, 2006 at 6:45am EST
  • ANT, No. In reality people do not sue just because they were offended. Why? Put simply, there is no tort of “offense.”

    I don’t know who started this “litigation” rumor.

    At best, professors want to be able to point to something, when some whiner complains.

  • Posted by Harrison , Prof. of English on November 29, 2006 at 12:30pm EST
  • I believe that prior to entering university, students should look up and learn the meaning of the word UNIVERSITY. Some years ago when I taught Burgess: A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, a number of students complained to the Dean that that they found the novel offensive, and refused to read it. The Dean requested that I withdrew it, and I refused. Sadly thereupon more than half of the students withdrew--unfortunately, incognizant of what they had missed because of their oversensitive and closemindedness. A great pity!

  • Posted by John Bonnell , professor of English at Macomb Commodity College on November 29, 2006 at 4:20pm EST
  • Larry has evidently not heard of "hostile environment" theory, which energizes a score or more of reasonable lawyers to thoroughly suppress academic freedom at my college--and, I presume, at a good many other colleges as well. Other lawyers, promoted to an even higher level of incompetence as judges on the federal bench, have ruled that, "While a professor's rights to academic freedom and freedom of expression are paramount in the academic setting, they are not absolute to the point of compromising a student's right to learn in a hostile-free environment." (Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 6th Circuit, 2001) What constitutes hostility? Virtually anything a "reasonable" student objects to. When is a student "reasonable?" Whenever college lawyers declare that she is. I don't know where Larry lives, but it must not be in this part of America's heartland.

  • Bonnell is not a HE sexual harassment case
  • Posted by Larry on November 29, 2006 at 5:05pm EST
  • Mr. Bonnell, First of all, read Bonnell before you cite it. It essentially holds the opposite of what you claim it does. You can find it here: http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01a0057p.06 . Secondly, this case was a 42 USC 1983 case, in which the plaintiff – a professor, claim that the enforcement of the college’s sexual harassment policy was unconstitutional. The court specifically did not rule on the merits, but the explained in the language that you cite that the school has some interest in maintaining a “hostile-free” learning environment. The court rightfully did not take a position on whether students could actually enforce such a right independently. Applying equitable principles, and explaining the interests of the professor and school (the student was not a party to the action), the court concluded that an preliminary injunction was not required.

    The “hostile environment” (HE) theory of sexual harassment generally does not apply to professor-student relationships because a plaintiff asserting HE is asserting that they were constructively discharged by nature of their sex (in violation of a civil rights statute). Because of these statutes, even in “at will” employment relationships, it still constitutes a breach of contract to treat an employee that badly.

    To show you that I am a good sport, I will provide you with the caselaw in one state on this issue.

    Therefore, because no actual questions of “hostile environment” sexual harassment were adjudicated, the case you cite is wholly inapplicable.

    Oh, I just noted that the professor was you.

  • Posted by John Bonnell , professor of English at Macomb Commodity College on November 29, 2006 at 6:45pm EST
  • Aw, gee, Larry, you're right. I ought to have read the opinion a dozen more times, until I reachieved the condition of the prisoner in Kafka's "In the Penal Colony," where every jot and tittle was etched into my marrow.

    The court in question did not rule on the merits apparently to save itself the embarrassment of having to nullify some jury's judgment. That would have made its contempt for the First Amendment (and its oath to uphold same) indisputably patent. You are, of course vague--just as the court was--about the meaning of the phrase "a 'hostile free' learning environment. And the court did not take a position upon students' rights beyond what institutions choose to represent or enforce. (I don't believe I said anything to the contrary. I said college lawyers must be involved, and always seem eager to anoint informers and to find their "complaints" meritorious and actionable. At least this is true at "my" college.)
    I presume "the equitable priniciples" you mention must refer to the Wallenda-like "balancing" act (a la Pickering) that many justices use. This, of course, is palpable "bolshevik"--a shell game indulged in by lawyers in high places to give a veneer of plausibility to their prejudices. That they do it with straight faces adds to the comic effect. The interest of the school was to be given permission to indulge in unbridled censorship, and the judges were eager to accommodate.

    Finally, HE theory may not apply in academia where you live but it appies big time here, in portions of Michigan. Your knowledge, sire, of what applies in other venues is virtually irrelevant where I live.

  • Posted by Larry on November 29, 2006 at 7:20pm EST
  • Mr. Bonnell, The court ruled on the issue before it. It could not, and did not rule on the merits. To do so would not only be outside its jurisdiction, but would be unfair to people who were not even a party to the case. That is the way justice works in my country.

  • Laarry revisiited
  • Posted by John Bonnell , professor of English at Macomb Commodity College on November 29, 2006 at 8:25pm EST
  • Excuse me, but, while your faith is touching, your naivete is boundless: my case proves how INjustice works. In our country. The First Amenedment states the Congress shall make no law abridging ... freedom of speech. It doesn't have to bother, since there are plenty of ideologues on federal benches eager to do such despicable work for them. The dodge that they were merely ruling on what was before them is disingenuous in the extreme. Read the opinion again, with both eyes open.

  • specifics needed
  • Posted by Larry on November 30, 2006 at 6:25am EST
  • Mr. Bonnell, Since you were personally involved in this case, it seems you have an axe to grind. Nevertheless, you have not identified an error of law that the court made. Instead, you have just accused a court of being “ideologues” or whatever. As between you and the Sixth Circuit, I think the Sixth’s resolution of an issue, on very familiar legal grounds is better than your proposed action which involves a wish that the court go outside its jurisdiction and resolve matters involving non-parties that are not before it.

  • more "Dear Larry:"
  • Posted by John Bonnell , professor of English at Macomb Commodity College on November 30, 2006 at 5:45pm EST
  • Yes, Larry, I have an axe to grind, an axe not unlike that of Ronald Goldman's family, keenly affected by an apparently blatant abortion of justice. The "error of law" that the court made was its disinclination to preserve and protect the Constitution. It not only denied me injunctive relief, permission to remain employed while challenging the college's assault on freedom of speech (disguised as preventing "sexual harassment"), it also denied me the right to a trial on the merits, claiming the poor babies (and its phalanx of attorneys) could no way know they were violating my rights to free speech (my speech rights in a classroom as well as in distributing a rebuttal to a phony "sexual harassment" charge). By denying me a chance to have a full hearing, they de facto ruled "on the merits." To pretend otherwise is part of the hypocrisy I have had to contend with.
    Just to indicate ONE of the numerous distortions the "ideologues" (perhaps "twits" would be more accurate?)stooped to, note the choice of words hizzoner concludes with: "we also hope that whenever we decide that intolerant speech should be restricted, it is understood that we do so with no less commitment to the value of tolerance and the First Amendment in which it is enshrined." Such ringing rhetoric is curious. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the record that supports any inclusion of such a concept, this invention of "intolerant speech." What hizzoner was trying to say was "intolerable speech," some sort of speech he and his ilk cannot abide. Which returns us precisely to the point of the First Amendemet.

    The "record," and ancillary documents, runs to hundreds of pages. If you have specific questions, I would be happy to engage them. In the meantime, countless "non-parties" are involved; that would be all those Americans who still believe, perhaps foolishly, that they have some inalienable right to express themselves in ways that are not physically injurious to their fellow citizens.

  • Posted by Joseph Omo-Osagie , Yes I will offend but maybe titilate in process... on December 7, 2006 at 12:25pm EST
  • I teach a human sexuality class and there are so many students with an array of bias' that I care to challenge their thinking. It would be a problem for me if I did not question their thinking. I think we are becoming a society that thinking is relegated to a few. Who chooses this few thinkers? I want my students to have a healthy regard for the impossible or be skeptical consumers of information. The whole idea of the LIBERAL education is to hopefully create thinkers and we now seem scared of thinking. I will have to give my pay back if my students do not leave my class with a new set questions rather than some diluted form of reality.