Recently, higher education faculty began incorporating trigger warnings. While doing so isn’t the norm, it isn’t necessarily considered unusual. This practice has drawn criticism by those who argue using trigger warnings coddles students in a way that stymies education, limits academic freedom, and censers student-faculty discussions (Lukianoff and Haidt 2015). Critics voice concerns that this movement is student driven rather than pedagogically based and may even put faculty at risk for punitive action. On the contrary, supporters believe that using trigger warnings benefit all students, but specifically marginalized students who otherwise may be emotionally or physically debilitated during select classes.
Taken at face value trigger warnings
…show more content…
The Benefit for Students
Science tells us as an individual experiences moderate distress, fear, or even panic, one cannot processes or retain information accurately. Giving advance notice allows affected students to emotionally and physically prepare for the class. Likewise, students who do not have a personal experience with the topic, but most likely hold pre-formed opinions regarding the emotionally charged topic, also benefit from the incorporation of trigger warnings. For these students, trigger warning provide an equally useful message to prepare for class in a way that allows them to:
• think about constructing and sharing their discussion points respectfully;
• come to class ready to speak aloud as well as equally ready to actively listen;
• be open minded when considering new facts or counter-arguments;
• take time to consider a different point of view;
…show more content…
Trigger warnings offer the opportunity for cognitive and affective growth as well as personal growth for students as well as faculty. Conversely, faculty and administrators have argued the exact opposite claiming that the use of trigger warnings reduce role of faculty. It has been suggested that trigger warnings impede academic freedom on behalf of professors. In addition, they also suggest that trigger warnings inhibit student growth and development (i.e.,by avoiding uncomfortable topics) because they argue, students enter college as over protected emotionally fragile adolescents who need to develop thick skin in preparation for the real world (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015).
Final
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
Leo goes on to discuss how this leads to over-sensitivity, severe peer judgement, and even a sensitivity violation. Much of this is written in a sarcastic tone, because the idea of campuses across the country enforcing “sensitivity violations” is a ridiculous statement in itself.
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
In the article The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, the authors go into great detail of describing the effects of trigger warnings. Using real world examples, Lukianoff and Haidt describes how college students are oversensitive and carried along the school year. The authors explain how this is a negative thing for the college students going into the work force in the future.
We’re called weak for wanting to deal with situations on our own time. Trigger warning, we have professors who may or may not use them. According to NPR Ed a survey was conducting to determine if professor have used trigger warnings in their classrooms “about half of professors said they’ve used a trigger warning in advance of introducing potentially difficult material”. When the survey was conduct overall 51% have used trigger warning while the other 49% have not. Dr. Onni Gust, assistant professor at the university of Nottingham, states “I use trigger warnings because they help students to stop for a moment and breathe, which helps them to think.” Gust highlights the importance of why he uses trigger warnings. He feels as if students should be able to make the choice of whether they want to deal with a certain situation at hand at that time. He gives students time to comprehend what they will be discussing and allows time for them to breathe and think. Gust, contends “unlike with two-year-old, I do not let my students avoid difficult or disturbing topics.” Here he shows that he does not coddle his students the way society has made it seem. Even though he gives warnings he gives them as a way for students to prepare themselves for the topic that is going to be discussed. Trigger warnings are not just considered as coddling and weak but are considered as giving students a
The way that we are taught as children, that “adults will do everything in their power to protect you from harm,” (Lukianoff/Haidt) ultimately is something that should, but is not, let go of when age increases. Likewise, this issue has become a very voiced problem at the University of Oklahoma. Recently, the President of the university took “aim at the rising political correctness on campuses across the country with a sharply-worded blog post calling kids "self-absorbed" For example, it is shown in the first article that many people propose that “helping people avoid the things they fear is misguided” and that “”the presumption that students need to be protected rather than challenged in a classroom is at once infantilizing and anti-intellectual” (Lukianoff/Haidt) due to the fact that it never allows someone to face and ultimately get over the fear. Another new idea that has surfaced which as potential to be harmful for personal growth, especially at this age, is the creation “safe places” being implemented across many college campuses.
Another concern that some students might have is communication. Some students might not need to have a teacher in front of them and teach the course material to them, to whereas some students might need the te...