Trigger Warnings and Universities
Traditionally, college is the place for students to be exposed to new challenges, new cultures, and overall a new way of life. It is widely known that most colleges give a student the perfect opportunity to expand and grow as a person. Going to college is very prestigious and almost a necessity to obtain most jobs, so therefore, a student’s educational experience is a very valuable thing in today’s society and it is not to be tampered with. The argument of trigger warnings shows up mainly in the case that professors are fighting against the implementation of them into their class curriculum. Whether the argument be for or against trigger warnings, this topic is becoming a very serious issue that is being brought
…show more content…
Content warnings are intended to portray information about the contents of a certain thing to allow people to decide if they were going to interact with it or not at their own discretion. Now, the argument at universities is whether or not trigger warning should be applied to current policies. Trigger warnings started in the midst of feminist blogs and online forums to inform the reader that the material on the page may cause extreme emotional reactions (Robbins). This goes to show that these warnings are not a new fad and should not be taken lightly. Trigger warnings have been around for a long time on a more domestic level in the sense that parents would monitor the material their children viewed. The domestic form of trigger warnings has shaped its way into college student’s minds and causing debates across the country. It has moved from their parents protecting them from explicit material, to requesting trigger warnings for lectures, books, and any curriculum that may cause an emotional …show more content…
Trigger warnings began on a domestic level, being used when parents were protecting their young children from material that was not appropriate for their age. With something similar in mind, many professors and teachers at universities are already implementing trigger warnings into their class content. These professors are typically looking out for the well being of their students and want them to be comfortable discussing their class material. Switching over to the opposing argument, many professors disagree and do not think that they should implement these trigger warnings into their policies. A team of professors went on to say that the responsibility of their student’s emotions should not be put into their hands, but should ultimately be put into the hands of the students themselves. Adding trigger warnings into universities would create a protective campus and shelter students from the gruesome reality that is our world
In Kate Manne’s article “Why I Use Trigger Warnings”, she argues that trigger warnings are an important feature to incorporate in an educator’s curriculum, but not as a safety cushion for millennials to fall on to avoid work and serious or uncomfortable topics. Using PTSD studies along with failed tests of exposure therapy for the foundation of her points, she explains that trigger warnings can help mentally prepare a student for what they are about to read instead of blindsiding them and throwing them into a potentially anxiety-induced state where they can’t focus. Manne also brings up how people can react when reading political or religious material in comparison towards reading possibly triggering material in order to differentiate between
First they explain how students have recently started expecting that their professors publish trigger warnings, alerts that students expect with anything that may cause distress, in the name of protecting students who may be reminded of trauma by being exposed to certain topics. While proving the fallacies in the concept of trigger warnings, Lukianoff and Haidt quote Harvard professor, Jeannie Suk 's essay about teaching rape law when students are determined to have protection from unpleasant ideas and demand trigger warnings. She says it is like trying to teach “a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he 'll become distressed at the sight of blood (48).” This shows how the students’ desire for protection cause difficulties in teaching for
The authors of “Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, use ethos, logos, and pathos convey their negative stance regarding trigger warnings and the effect they on education. Lukianoff and Haidt’s use of rhetorical appeal throughout the article adds to the author’s credibility and the strength of the argument against increasing the use of trigger warnings in school material. The authors, Lukianoff and Haidt, rely heavily upon the use of logos, such as relations between conflicts surrounding trigger warnings and other historical conflicts impacting student ethics. Examples of the use of these logical appeals are the relation between the Columbine Massacre and the younger generations ideology. The author goes on to mention other societal turning points such
Although trigger warnings sound like a harmless idea to many, there is an extreme controversy about whether or not they should be used in college lectures. Many college professors have conflicting views about trigger warnings; some agree on using them while others are against it. This debate topic is particularly intriguing in Kate Manne’s article in the New York Times titled, “Why I Use Trigger
They should start discussions about rape and sexist cases because it’s going on in today’s society and for people to know it’s okay to talk about it if it ever happened to them. Colleges need to prepare students for the real word so they need to have real life discussions in class for the students that are growing up and entering the workforce. College campuses are going through the mircoagression theory and professors fear to talk about trigger warnings in class when both students and professors should have freedom of speech in classrooms. “One of my biggest concerns about trigger warnings,” Roff wrote, “is that they will apply not just to those who have experienced trauma, but to all students, creating an atmosphere in which they are encouraged to believe that there is something dangerous or damaging about discussing difficult aspects of our history.” (49). Professors try to avoid teaching material that will upset sensitive students, but instead they should start warning students about the materials they are going to teach and set boundaries so students can know what they are about to learn to prevent teachers from getting in trouble or risk getting fired from their
College is full of new experiences, new people, and new communities, and many universities encourage the exchange of new ideas and diversity among students. This year, the University of Chicago sent out a letter to all of its incoming freshmen informing them that in keeping with their beliefs of freedom of expression and healthy discussion and debate, the school would not provide “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings”. Senior Sophie Downes found this letter to be misleading in many ways, including in the definitions of safe spaces and trigger warnings, as well as the issues it was addressing. Downes claims that the letter was misrepresenting the school, but also was using the letter as a sort
Teachers become afraid to challenges students values and beliefs, also creating a repressive area for debates. The article “On Trigger Warnings” by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) states that “the presumption that need to be protected rather than challenged in a classroom is at once infantilizing and anti-intellectual”. Demanding trigger warnings make comfort more of a priority than learning. Faculty may feel like they need to warn students about the course material because some students might find it disconcerting, but the voluntary use of trigger warnings on syllabus could be counterproductive. Just because some material may cause one person to have trauma does not mean everyone will and by putting a trigger warning on the syllabus might cause others to expect something upsetting. This could cause students to not read assignments or it might provoke a response from students they otherwise would not have had. Trigger warnings also signal an expected response and discourage the reading experience and even eliminate spontaneity. Trigger warnings make students into victims and makes both teachers and students fearful to ask questions because it might make someone uncomfortable. The goal is to educate and challenge students, make students question things and debate on things that they normally do not think about. AAUP also says that “the call for trigger warnings comes
In Roxane Gay 's op-ed, "The Seduction of Safety, on Campus and Beyond", she states, "Rather than use trigger warnings, I try to provide students with the context they will need to engage productively in complicated discussions", and this is exactly what I am talking about. People who understand that freedom of speech does not have to be taken away in order to stop "triggering" people. Communication is key and freedom of speech is our given right that allows us to communicate our thoughts and feelings. When I searched, "safe spaces in universities" on google, all I could find was article after article of people criticizing safe spaces and giving reasons why they should not happen on college campuses. The most used reason, was a reason that Shulevitz used as well, that safe spaces create ignorance in the growing teenager and become problematic. While this may be true, I feel I should of found more articles like Gay 's, emphasizing with victims and understanding the need for safety sometimes, but without ignorance. The world is scary, hurtful, and breaks you as you grow older. Safe spaces are needed for comfort, they can bring peace, and give someone a person who understands. It 's wrong to put college students behind a door and shut them in so they are not "triggered" by someone 's opinion, but it 's also wrong to not acknowledge that sometimes, people just need to take a break from all the speech in the world and re-cope themselves to
The author argues that the use of “trigger warnings” should not become a policy due to the student becoming uncomfortable over a certain lesson in class. The argument is effective in parts, but not as a whole. What about the students who actually are medically unable to deal with a lesson in class due to PTSD? This editorial really only showed the bad side of trigger warnings inside colleges classes instead of showing the pros and the cons like most would. Some people claim that the addition of trigger warnings would not affect a college student’s ability to complete the work. It would also be difficult to do well on parts of a test unless they have a friend who will attend class still and take notes for them. Over all, trigger warnings are not completely bad, but they can most definitely be taken advantage of by students who do not want to go to classes one
According to The Coddling of the American Mind, trigger warnings and microaggressions confine professors’ and well-educated adults’ unalienable right of speech; furthermore, they can impact one’s health. Protecting rights have a unison consensus; the authors unite them and the audience together to persuade the well-educated adults to protest the use of trigger warnings and microaggressions. While concluding that vindictive protectiveness is the reason for trigger warnings and microaggressions Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt state, “A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety.” (45) The word “policing” holds a negative connotation implying regulation, and no one wants their first amendment right of free speech stolen from them. Also the idea that trigger warnings and microaggressions may lead to depression and anxiety gives more logical reasoning to end trigger warnings and microaggressions in higher level education. When the authors specify the change that colleges should make, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt write their idea of the purpose of college, “Rather than
While school shootings threaten children and faculty amongst schools in America, metal detectors do not set a welcoming tone for any school. Generally, people consider metal detectors a source of safety and will rely on them to decrease the likelihood of danger, but unfortunately that does not always occur. In reality, metal detectors would cause more trouble for schools, they would make people question their safety, and they would not be as effective nor as necessary as they used to be.
There has been a lot of controversy regarding the use of police departments using tasers. Many people think that tasers are less lethal and safer for police to use on everyone but, throughout this essay there will be many reasons as to why tasers are unsafe and pose a threat to someone on the receiving end. Tasers have been involved with many deaths and other injuries. The main topic that will be discussed in this essay is how sometimes shooting is a taser and just stunning the person is not all that happens. There are much more to stun guns than just 5 seconds of paralysis.
Studying a university degree is one of the biggest achievements of many individuals around the world. But, according to Mark Edmunson, a diploma in America does not mean necessarily studying and working hard. Getting a diploma in the United States implies managing with external factors that go in the opposite direction with the real purpose of education. The welcome speech that most of us listen to when we started college, is the initial prank used by the author to state the American education system is not converging in a well-shaped society. Relating events in a sarcastic way is the tone that the author uses to explain many of his arguments. Mark Edmunson uses emotional appeals to deliver an essay to the people that have attended College any time in their life or those who have been involved with the American education system.
For example, according to Dara lind “Officer’s aren’t supposed to shoot to kill. They’re supposed to do whatever is necessary to disable the threat”(Lind). Whenever an officer gets caught up in a difficult situation where deadly force is needed for the most part officers do shoot to kill because they feel like there life is in danger themselves. Yes like they said they are supposed to do whatever is necessary so therefore if shooting to kill someone is necessary to them then for police officers it is the right thing to do. But in reality in some occasions deadly force by a cop resulting in someone’s death is not needed and there should be other alternatives to handle difficult problems like that. In addition, “Usually, the point from where the officer believes he has to use deadly force to the point where he uses deadly force -- where he pulls
Gun safety is a subject that has been a main topic in the past few years among many, especially within politics. It is something that has become a substantial topic in the past few years due to many shootings and accidents that have occurred with today’s youth. It is a topic that needs to be addressed.