Trigger Warning Essay

Take a Stand: Why Trigger Warnings Aren’t The Answer

Over the past several years, a disturbing trend has emerged in America’s colleges. Am I talking about a rising crime rate? Academic dishonesty? Lower graduation rates? None of the above. I’m referring to a practice originally intended to help people, and a policy that leads to a less valuable education. Trigger warnings are notifications placed in academic settings to warn against topics that could be offensive or disturbing to students (and could for some, “trigger” psychological and emotional problems caused by post traumatic stress disorder.) While this may seem like a worthy cause, the underlying mindset behind trigger warnings causes harm to students, and can end up leading to a culture

But it didn’t stay on the blogosphere. The concept spread to college campuses, where students complained of “triggering” subjects, not only in classrooms but also at college events. Kathleen Parker, columnist for the Washington post, describes how such warnings might be applied to a public speech on campus, displayed on “ a sign carried or posted near the auditorium where a speech is to be given”, warning of “[ideas] that could trigger an emotional response.” She explains how a public discussion on the subject of rape could “cause a rape victim to suffer.” More and more college administrators are exploring policies that would require trigger warnings for certain subjects. The AAUP report describes some of the subjects that such policies consider to be “triggering”: “Oberlin College’s original policy [. . .] is an example of the range of possible trigger topics: ‘racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and

Students could claim to be “triggered” by almost anything and get out of difficult assignments. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt write in “The Coddling Of The American Mind,” an article for The Atlantic, that in a culture where “generally considered unacceptable to question the reasonableness [. . .] of someone’s emotional state [. . .] the thin argument ‘I’m offended’ becomes an unbeatable trump card.” The trigger warning culture enables this “I’m offended” card and as trigger warnings become more accepted, students will be more inclined to play it. Lukianoff and Haidt go on to argue that “In the process, the bar for what we consider unacceptable speech is lowered further and further.” With such a delicate atmosphere, professors would rather not touch on any material which would leave them liable for “triggering” a student. Jenny Suk describes students at law school asking professors to avoid topics crucial to understanding law, because they found them distressing. “One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class [. . .] because the word was triggering.” This is an obvious abuse of the system, or at least a fundamental misunderstanding of how college works. Incredibly, Suk goes on to say that “Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.” How are students going to become competent lawyers if they are allowed to completely skip over