Trigger Warnings

[DwnWthVwls]

So as some of you may know I'm taking an argument/persuasion class this semester in which we will be discussing many different topics that will be suitable for this part of the forum section. Here is an article from my first assignment:

If you frequent certain corners of the Internet, you may already be familiar with trigger warnings, which are sometimes attached to media that contain potentially upsetting content, including graphic depictions of sexual violence or other traumas.

The debate over their utility (or frivolity, according to some) didn’t start with Jenny Jarvie’s Tuesday piece in the New Republic, and it won’t end there. Which is actually a good thing; these conversations are usually instructive, even for what they miss.

According to Jarvie, trigger warnings started harmlessly enough as an elective label used to identify uniquely graphic content, but have slowly morphed into a “cultural hypersensitivity to harm and a paranoia about giving offense” that now pose a threat to the free exchange of ideas in the press and across college campuses.

“As students introduce [trigger warnings] in college newspapers, promotional material for plays, even poetry slams, it’s not inconceivable that they’ll appear at the beginning of film screenings and at the entrance to art exhibits,” Jarvie writes. “Will newspapers start applying warnings to articles about rape, murder, and war? Could they even become a regular feature of speech? ‘I was walking down Main Street last night when — trigger warning — I saw an elderly woman get mugged.’”

She also points to a “growing” number of students who are “demanding trigger warnings on class content” as a slow creep toward academic censorship:

Many instructors are obliging with alerts in handouts and before presentations, even emailing notes of caution ahead of class. At Scripps College, lecturers give warnings before presenting a core curriculum class, the “Histories of the Present: Violence,” although some have questioned the value of such alerts when students are still required to attend class. Oberlin College has published an official document on triggers, advising faculty members to “be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression,” to remove triggering material when it doesn’t “directly” contribute to learning goals and “strongly consider” developing a policy to make “triggering material” optional.

Jarvie may be correct to point out that the use of trigger warnings has gained some traction (though I think she overstates quite how much) in college classrooms and certain media outlets, but the use of such labels is still a relatively niche phenomenon. She’s also right to be wary of schools willing to use trigger warnings as a blunt instrument to stop certain texts from being taught.

But the bigger truth, and what Jarvie doesn’t really grapple with in her piece, is that trigger warnings are an imperfect but sometimes necessary band-aid on the open and gaping wounds plaguing college campuses — rampant sexual violence, for starters. Singling out trigger warnings as the greater problem in need of addressing is, perhaps, missing the point.

Sexual violence on college campuses is an issue with unprecedented visibility right now, which could explain why the conversation about the warnings’ use in classrooms is getting attention as well. Students who advocate for these warnings may see them as a nod toward compassion and accountability in a campus environment (and culture, in general) that could use a lot more of both — and they’re very likely correct in this.

There is plenty of room to debate the uses and consequences of applying trigger warnings to course material. Trauma responses are varied, complicated and often unpredictable; there is no fail-safe way to shield someone from such a response. But while we are talking about the potential limits of trigger warnings, we should also probably be discussing the context in which this is all playing out and address the steps college administrations can take to make their campus environments safer for students. As a friend remarked in a conversation about Jarvie’s piece, students might be less inclined to request a trigger warning for “The Great Gatsby” if they felt confident that their school took seriously racist frat parties, epidemic rates of sexual violence, and persistent failures of accountability from administrators.

I don’t agree that putting trigger warnings on course content is tantamount to censorship — presumably, the materials would and should still be taught. But, to me, the larger issue here is that the students who can speak to the experiences of trauma represented in these texts may be withdrawing themselves from the conversation at a moment when their voices and perspectives are so necessary. While it isn’t the responsibility of people who have been victims of sexual assault and other traumas to “educate” their classmates, their voices are a valuable part of classroom discussions. Creating a space where this can happen should be a priority for administrators and teachers. If trigger warnings are part of creating the space for that to happen, then why not include them? If taking steps toward structural accountability around these issues is another way of achieving that goal, all the better.

When it comes to trigger warnings, I tend to agree with Roxane Gay, who argued that they “might be ineffective, impractical and necessary for creating safe spaces all at once.” I also agree with Gay that the “safety” they offer is illusory.

But I also realize that the way we talk about sexual violence today — and the way we treat victims — is deeply imperfect. Rather than take a blanket position against trigger warnings, maybe we can try to better understand what they can and can’t do and acknowledge the deeper issues at play when students ask for safety and accountability.

TLDR - Professors must put a trigger warning on any material they intend on teaching that could potentially trigger something emotional from your past. I don't want to post all four articles but there is more to it than what this one article covers. Teachers have been asked that if some of these things don't directly relate to the material being taught that it should be removed entirely from the lecture.

Class discussion included:
-Should students be excused if they are uncomfortable with the material?
-Are these warnings necessary?
-What effect do they have on academia?

A List of Trigger Warnings. Some are reasonable, and some are absolutely f*cking absurd. Bugs? Skulls?
http://trigger-warnings.tumblr.com/tags

If anyone would actually like to read the other articles I can post em. I just didn't wanna make a Lord post :P

[John Wilkes Booth]

don't have time to read the whole article atm as i have work soon, but how are trigger warnings any different from explicit content stickers, movie ratings and graphic content disclaimers at the beginning of tv shows? i.e. nothing new here imo...

[DwnWthVwls]

TBH it's not and most of us in class said we don't have a problem with the idea of including them. The problem is how they are starting to hinder academia, and how you balance them. Oberlin was the first college to start doing it and according to them teachers were asked to take any possible triggers out of their lectures unless they were absolutely necessary to the lecture. Look at the list of trigger warnings and think about how useless a lot of subjects would be without them.

So you're teaching a class on english lit which includes Huck Finn and half the class is offended by "Nigger Jim", now they don't have to do the work, and yet they are getting credit for the course? The point of college is to challenge and educate you. If you can't handle the subject matter you're learning for your major maybe you shouldn't be in that field of study.

[EPOCH6]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

If you can't handle the subject matter you're learning for your major maybe you shouldn't be in that field of study.

Right, I think this is the major point to be made.

I don't think trigger warnings themselves are anything to get steamed up over. As JWB said, it's not a whole lot different than an EXPLICIT CONTENT sticker. But I certainly don't believe explicit content should actually be filtered out of the curriculum, it's much more practical to simply advise caution. Or better yet, could we not just focus on providing a clearer understanding of curriculum prior to student enrollment? Why does it even get to the point where halfway through a course you have to remind students, "Oh yeah, in case you weren't expecting to see anything about this in English Literature, today we're going to be analyzing something with serious mature content!". I suppose students ought to have the option to opt out of something that may be traumatic, who are we to force them into it? But ****, you don't learn to cope with the past by shielding yourself from reality, sometimes you gotta roll with the punches to get through things.

[DwnWthVwls]

Another argument was made in the case of rape victims who have unique experience with the situation and actually help us understand and see things from a perspective we would have never had the opportunity to otherwise.

[The Batlord]

I think, besides triggers which actually TRIGGER (i.e. rape, PSD from war... I'm sure there's some "etc" I can't think of) they seem largely useless. All well and good to let some girl who might have been raped know that such and such reading assignment contains a graphic rape scene, but otherwise what's the point? What purpose is actually being served?

[EPOCH6]

@DwnWthVwls:
Which would be great, but ultimately it is up to the victim to decide whether or not they want to do that. However I don't see an issue with a professor saying to a class, "Wenesday's lecture will be on this and that and if there are any of you who would be able to provide a unique and informed perspective, I would greatly appreciate your input, thank you". I think maybe the trickiest part of this debate is deciding whether or not students should be docked credits for opting out of certain sessions, maybe they could be offered an alternative assignment to fill those credits, but where is the line drawn on how often somebody can opt out, such a system could obviously be abused.

[DwnWthVwls]

You're basically hitting all the things we discussed, and I agree with you.

[WWWP]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I think, besides triggers which actually TRIGGER (i.e. rape, PSD from war... I'm sure there's some "etc" I can't think of) they seem largely useless. All well and good to let some girl who might have been raped know that such and such reading assignment contains a graphic rape scene, but otherwise what's the point? What purpose is actually being served?

My thoughts exactly. The frivolity, especially in regard to academia, is insulting.

Edit: Also, my understanding of trigger warnings are that they're in place so whomever may be triggered may be able to mentally prepare themselves for the content, not excuse them from an assignment. If they chose to skip a scene or something, that's one thing, but it kind of discredits the emotional state of someone with PTSD if their trauma is deemed just as valid as someone with a fear of bugs.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by wolverinewolfweiselpigeon

My thoughts exactly. The frivolity, especially in regard to academia, is insulting.

Edit: Also, my understanding of trigger warnings are that they're in place so whomever may be triggered may be able to mentally prepare themselves for the content, not excuse them from an assignment. If they chose to skip a scene or something, that's one thing, but it kind of discredits the emotional state of someone with PTSD if their trauma is deemed just as valid as someone with a fear of bugs.

There's the "etc" I was thinking of!