It is honestly
ridiculous to me that there is a controversy on giving trigger warnings to
students. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is becoming increasingly evident
in college students today, and there seems to be this debate on whether or not trigger
warnings should be used in classrooms. The question that I understand being debated
is, “Should there be caution used by professors when introducing vulgar or
violent content into their classrooms in an attempt to reduce discomfort in
students, or would that count as coddling younger generations and limiting
Freedom of Speech rights of professors?” To me, it is obvious that there should
be caution used when referencing or showing graphic images such as assault or
drugs. That is not limiting a professor’s First Amendment rights; it is simply
respect for students who have suffered from trauma.
In an
attempt to argue the benefits of trigger warnings, Eleanor Lockhart identifies four
major arguments against the usage of them in her article, Why trigger
warnings are beneficial, perhaps even necessary, including mandating,
exposure therapy, microaggressions, and impediment of faculty’s freedom of
speech (64-66). Meaning, the major arguments against trigger warnings say that
there is no way to regulate them without violating Freedom of Speech rights and
the use of them is just coddling young adults, which does not prepare them for
the future. On the other hand, Lockhart says, “The
purpose of a trigger warning is not to facilitate individuals’ avoidance of
traumatizing stimuli, but to prepare them to encounter such stimuli”
(63). Therefore, the intent and impact of trigger warnings is not coddling of
youth, it is actually assisting in getting them ready for exposure to their triggers.
Likewise, the article “Why I Use Trigger Warnings” by Kate Manne,
a millennial and assistant professor in philosophy, also suggests trigger
warnings are necessary and appropriate dependent upon the situation and content
in a classroom. Manne says, “The point [of trigger warnings] is not to enable –
let alone encourage – students to skip these readings or our subsequent class
discussion… it is to allow those who are sensitive to these subjects to prepare
themselves for reading about them, and better manage their reactions.” Therefore,
people who are making arguments against using trigger warnings, I believe, are
uninformed and oblivious to what shock can do to someone who has experienced a
trauma, and are using the First Amendment as a scape goat to justify their
usage of shock regarding disturbing images or content in classroom. In other
words, I do not believe this is an issue of Freedom of Speech; it is an issue
of respect and empathy for those who have experienced trauma.
Sources:
Lockhart, Eleanor A. "Why Trigger
Warnings Are Beneficial, Perhaps Even Necessary." Taylor & Francis. First Amendment Studies, 28 Sept. 2015. Web.
Manne, Kate. "Why I Use Trigger
Warnings." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 19 Sept. 2015. Web.
As I was reading this article, I too could not help but feel that this was a one-sided argument, for I am of the same belief as you. Trigger warnings are a beneficial, and sometimes necessary, aspect to the learning process in a classroom where graphic content is shown and discussed. As you stated in your post, “it is simply respect for students who have suffered from trauma.” I want to add that is also a means to show respect for all students, regardless if they have suffered a past trauma. As Lockhart says, “…the purpose of a trigger warning is not to facilitate individuals’ avoidance of traumatizing stimuli, but to prepare them to encounter such stimuli.” (Lockhart 63). The way I see it, trigger warnings are just that, warnings—a preemptive measure taken to assure that students can somewhat prepare themselves for unpleasant reactions.
ReplyDeleteLockhart also mentions that alternate activities can be arranged for those that are not ready to view/read such crude content. However, “No student has ever taken me up on the offers.” (63). I have been in a few classes where a teacher/professor has warned my class that we would be moving into a sensitive topic and that if it gets too uncomfortable we were free to step outside. My experiences have yielded the same results as Lockhart’s though. Given proper warning, my peers and I have never felt the need to leave the classroom during a discussion concerning graphic content. This brings me to the major concern addressed by the other side; trigger warnings have the potential to coddle younger generations, or as Lockhart says, “Some see the trigger warnings as an attempt to protect young college students who do not want to hear any views contrary to their own.” (65). Essentially, those who are opposed to trigger warnings are concerned that they will limit open and honest discussion.
I agree this is a valid concern to bring forward, as does law professor Ilya Somin at George Mason University. In a Washington Post article, Professor Somin states that “trigger warnings inhibit free discussion of difficult issues…”. Furthermore, he tells the reader that in one of his courses, Constitutional Law II, he gives his students a warning against trigger warnings on the first day of class. In his reasoning, he states that if he did believe in trigger warnings, he “would have to include one for virtually every day of this course.” (Somin). When I first read this, I was somewhat confused. By making this statement on the first day of class, wasn’t he in fact giving his students trigger warnings for every day of class? Apparently, I wasn’t the only one that though so, for UC-Berkeley Law professor David Schraub made a comment that the warning about trigger warnings was in a sense a trigger warning itself. Professor Somin responded by saying that this is only true if the definition of a trigger warning is too broad (Somin).
Of the two, I find myself agreeing with Professor Schraub more, for I believe that any preemptive statement at the beginning of the semester that informs students that they will be discussing painful and distressing topics and which topics will be among those discussed is a trigger warning. To conclude, I would say that proper conduct in a classroom should include the ability to inform students that they will be discussing disturbing content before the topics are covered. Whether it is at the beginning of the semester or the day before, as long as the warning is given prior to the discussion/viewing of the material then the proper amount of respect was shown towards the students.
Sources:
Lockhart, Eleanor Amaranth. “Why trigger warnings are beneficial, perhaps even necessary.” First Amendment Studies, vol. 50, no. 2, 28 Sept. 2016, pp. 59-69, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21689725.2016.1232623 Accessed 10 Oct. 2017.
Somin, Ilya. “A warning against trigger warnings.” The Washington Post, 25 Aug. 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/25/a-warning-against-trigger-warnings/?utm_term=.af78912961c2 Accessed 10 Oct. 2017.
When it comes to the debate regarding classroom policies like trigger warnings and safe spaces, I think they're valuable so long as they're not taken to the extreme. In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to expect an advance warning when confronted with topics that could trigger an episode of PTSD, like discussions about rape, violence, etc. I think this concept holds true when it comes to safe spaces as well - I don't think it's unrealistic for students to expect that they shouldn't be demeaned by character attacks, slurs about their race/gender/sexual orientation, and the like.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think policies like these, while well-intended, have the potential to do more harm than good to students if they're implemented incorrectly. Van Jones, a CNN contributor, recipient of the NAACP President's Award, and former Special Advisor to President Obama, gave what I believe was an excellent and rational presentation at the University of Chicago a few months ago and discussed this topic. The crux of his argument centered on the fact that these policies, if taken too far, have the potential to hurt students' abilities to confront other points of view if they never encounter them. Jones advocates for the concept of ideological diversity so that students can become stronger in their beliefs and develop them in the face of being challenged.
“CLIP: Van Jones on Safe Spaces on College Campuses.” The University of Chicago Institute of Politics, 24 Feb. 2017, politics.uchicago.edu/news/entry/clip-van-jones-on-safe-spaces-on-college-campuses.