Trigger warnings do not impede intellectual debate
The University of Chicago recently released a statement condemning “trigger warnings” and safe spaces. The university claimed that such procedures inhibit free speech and the “freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas.” It also claimed that they do not approve of intellectual safe spaces where students could “retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.” The letter has warranted a wide variety of responses — fervent support from many who claim that college campuses are overrun with political correctness and coddling, as well as opposition from many who claim that it interferes with diversity and inclusion initiatives.
Trigger warnings have been misconstrued for several years now. The words “coddling,” “privileged” and “real–world” are now negatively associated with the term. Most people seem to think that trigger warnings are a get-out-of-jail-free card for any student who feels that discussing difficult topics makes them uncomfortable. This is simply not the case. Trigger warnings have always been and remain a gentle warning to the material coming ahead. Students who may have personal experiences related to the graphic content are able to properly prepare themselves for reading, discussions and other educational interactions.
College years are a time when students are supposed to be pushed intellectually. College courses are meant to deal with topics that students may never have discussed before, analyzing and digging deeper into the complexities that affect our society today. They are inevitably going to be uncomfortable — and are meant to grow from that feeling. Trigger warnings in no way interfere with this intellectual learning curve.
Trigger warnings can be compared to warning signs near construction zones, a list of health risks read before riding on a roller coaster and signs that certain dishes “may contain nuts.” Mental health can and should be treated as equal to physical health, and treating trigger warnings as anything but equivalent to these signs diminishes the struggle of those who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder and anxiety. Opponents to trigger warnings often ask, “Where does it stop?” Just as with the examples listed before, society has norms outlining what is obvious and what is not. Peanut butter jars do not have disclaimers about containing nuts, but chocolate chip cookies in a restaurant often do. It is up to professors to decide when, how and where to issue trigger warnings. Professors are better able to fully understand the implications of their material, and can therefore decide what may or may not affect students negatively.
The notion that students are routinely opting out of classes because the material that is covered makes them uncomfortable has been proven to be untrue. According to New York Magazine, only 15 percent of professors have ever been asked for trigger warnings, and 13.3 percent of those professors have been asked “once or twice.” Trigger warnings are saved for instances in which students feel that the material can truly affect them, or a fellow classmate. They are not being used to avoid others’ opinions and get out of difficult conversations.
These conversations about coddling and entitled millennials infantilize college students. The reality is that students enjoy to be pushed and challenged. According to The New York Times, 78 percent of students “preferred a campus ‘where students are exposed to all types of speech and viewpoints,’ including offensive and biased speech, over a campus where such speech is prohibited.” The first amendment is well and alive on college campuses, as is students’ desire to engage in difficult conversations.
Trigger warnings and safe spaces do not stop students from having difficult conversations. They enable them to have them in more productive ways. In the very rare occasions in which they are used, students are able to engage in such discussions calmly and by listening to all sides and opinions on the matter. Restructuring and redefining the term not as an escape but rather as a means to productive communication will prove to be valuable as colleges continue to develop their diversity initiatives and protect their intellectual ethos.
When I went to USC I took an elective class; it was an ethnic studies one. There were a few times I thought the professor said some “insensitive” things. I just laugh at him because I know in the REAL world i.e. private sector, shit degrees like the one he holds….couldn’t get him a J, O, B.
…Had I known what this professor was like, I’d avoid him like a disease.
This is the direction our country is headed….scary!
Oh, to be protected all through life from pending unpleasant events or knowledge. And never to suffer a slight or even a downright insult. Nice if you can afford to be such a tender, delicate, fragile little flower. But if you are going to work for a living, or deal with difficult people, a college is doing you no favors by insulating you with “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces” or similar protective coddling. No, such a college would be helping you to fail in a tough outside world where you will find no such protection for your delicate sensibilities.
No, that is NOT to say that college should be a place to promote suffering vicious insults, personal attacks or repulsive experiences. But neither should it shield you, any more than outside life will. Better you be prepared through all your school years – college included – than devastated when you hit that cold, cruel world.
They may help people have nice, friendly and civil conversation, but they do not push boundaries and they do not make people confront their own prejudices.
After 25 you have to work with people you don’t agree with, but you must learn to communicate effectively with respect for all. And there are no trigger warnings, that is a learned skill, that will be lost without an open environment to learn it in. If a person can’t do that at university then I really don’t know where s/he will.