Over the past few months, universities have been accused of coddling their millennials by catering to the “over-sensitivity” of their students. The need for trigger warnings especially has been lambasted by the frothing academia, fearing the emergence of censorship.
The general misconception is this: Trigger warnings aim to remove all that is controversial in classrooms and discussion. Many believe it is all a part of the dreaded politically-correct culture, or the end of academic freedom.
The truth? Trigger warnings emerged because of a new willingness across the nation to discuss topics such as sexual assault, PTSD and mental illness. Trigger warnings are not used to censor us from these topics; they do not apply to a majority of us in the first place. Rising from the feminist blogosphere, these warnings were intended for those who experienced trauma and can easily be triggered into experiencing flashbacks or panic attacks.
Individuals are then able to choose whether they want to engage with the material or not. It is your choice. With no great personal cost, you can easily ignore trigger warnings without denying the same choice to others who are in need of them.
While less than one percent of universities have adopted a policy on trigger warnings, many professors have started including them on their syllabi or before discussions. Mainly, professors see this as building trust by warning their students of potentially traumatic topics – something that has been cited to help students engage better with these topics.
Students at many universities, such as Columbia and Rutgers, have moved to ask for a trigger warning policy that extends to every classroom. While I do not agree that they should be made mandatory, I do believe trigger warnings themselves are harmless, while what they warn against are not.
I will be the first to admit that trigger warnings have been used for their unintended purposes. There have been instances where they have been used to undermine the experiences of literature, and even to propose the banning of this literature from a curriculum. While these instances are extreme and few, 60 percent of professors believe that trigger warnings are stifling to the educational process.
However, another 40 percent, which include the largest group of youngest teachers, think they instead benefit and encourage more discussion on controversial topics.
Universities can also take the burden off of professors and propose their own voluntary policy for trigger warnings. While it’s not a university’s job to provide comfort in classroom discussions, it is to provide safety.
The U.S., and even universities, has had a history of banning material for being too controversial and provocative; however, we should not fear trigger warnings because of past mistakes. Most likely, these trigger warnings won’t affect you, but it may affect your classmate’s learning experience.
Let’s stop the fear mongering on trigger warnings and instead embrace them as proof that we are moving towards a society that is more willing to talk about the things that matter. Yes, this may be what some refer to as sensitive, but from what I can see, we could all use a little more sensitivity and compassion towards each other and the silent struggles that we all endure.
The views and opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section are those of the authors of the articles. They are not an endorsement of the views of The Chronicle or its staff. The Chronicle does not discriminate based on the opinions of the authors.