Trigger warnings play into a much more enveloping spectrum between academic freedom and empathetic sensitivity. Interestingly enough, the key points from yesterday’s conversation (and the overall conversation) seemed to focus on the two poles.
On one end, the opinion states that trigger warnings act not only to coddle students but also to diminish academic freedom and objectivity in knowledge. On the other end, many feel that there exists an apathy towards the needs of those who have experienced a traumatic experience and trigger warnings will help meet those needs. They believe that since a majority of people in our society have not experienced a life-threatening traumatic event, many will never know what the anxiety and trauma feel like. They conclude that the current status quo does not provide appropriate protection for those in need of support. Both sides raise important points but neither alone can adequately address the situation.
Currently, the trajectory observed on college campuses reveals more and more demands for trigger warnings, safe spaces, and other utilities that can help shield individuals from the harmful effects of trauma-induced anxiety. However research shows that students demand trigger warnings more so to filter offensive opinions rather than trauma-related content. For certain veterans, loud noises may trigger anxiety attacks, with both emotional and physical manifestations. This may reside on the more extreme end of the trauma spectrum, but students can and have experienced equally intense events. However, I recall hearing stories about students who feel like simply hearing or seeing a word, such as ‘violate’, may trigger a strong response. I am not in a position to say whether or not these happen on the same magnitude as other triggers, but I see as a red flag. The very nature of trigger warnings, and their current implementation in some universities can induce over-reliance or even exploitation.
Trigger warnings definitely serve an important purpose in our education system. They allow those who may shutdown under reminiscent content to take preemptive steps. Continuing to implement them will help ensure that students can learn in an optimal environment. However, that ‘optimal’ designation comes not only from emotional safety, but also from academic freedom and intellectual challenges. Whenever trigger warnings only cater to emotional safety and not the actual learning process, changes should be considered. Whenever students begin to use trigger warnings as an excuse to excusably miss class, changes should be considered. If (definitely a big if) trigger warnings suffocate the life skills we need as contributors to society, then changes DEFINITELY should be considered.
So as we continue to empathize with those who have experienced horrendous life events, we should strive to minimize the detrimental effects of trigger warnings. Too much sensitivity can be just as harmful as insensitivity, so we must aim for a healthy balance. After all, life won’t always provide warnings and an attitude of passively relying on safety nets can’t help us in all situations.
Questions that I now have:
- What role do trigger warnings play in different cultures, especially in developing countries?
- What will ongoing psychological research reveal about the effectiveness of trigger warnings?
- How do trigger warnings compare to other forms of emotional support?
Referenced articles:
http://wesleyanargus.com/2016/04/04/paradox-of-trigger-warnings/ (Links to an external site.)
I think back to our first PLA class and how trigger warnings were just thrown in at the end of the class – it was certainly a stimulating start to the semester! As research shows – and as you point out in your post – there are two sides to the argument: some people argue that trigger warnings are necessary in order to preserve student safety and to respect past traumas, and the opposing side says that they merely interfere with academic freedom. It’s very difficult to say that one side is completely right and the other completely wrong. So often it depends on individual cases, and I think that this need to “think in the grey” was evident in our class discussion. When groups worked together to present a consensus, only one group blatantly said “trigger warnings should be mandated.” While I was a member of that group, I find it difficult to agree with that statement. There’s very little evidence to support the benefits of trigger warnings. Also, I am extremely fearful that trigger warnings would take away from academic freedom and hinder universities’ promises to challenge and stimulate students. College should be a place that nurtures growth and discovery. I think trigger warnings generalize a problem that is everything but general. Students who have experienced a traumatic event – or those who experience a previously unknown adverse reaction – should be treated on an individual basis. We are all unique and something as general as trigger warnings can’t possibly help – it can only hinder.