Are We The Most Sensitive Generation Of All Time?

The purpose of my research is to explore and offer analysis of the controversy over the use of trigger warnings and safe spaces on college campuses, in order to understand when, where, and most importantly, regarding what subjects their use is appropriate.

Roxane Gay’s persuasive essay, “The Illusion of Safety/The Safety of Illusion” is about trigger warnings in the media. Her argument in the essay is that trigger warnings in the media give a false sense of security to the people the warnings seek to shield. She explains how trigger warnings are futile because you cannot protect someone from their own self. She also proposes that as time goes on anything can have the potential to become a trigger to someone.

In the article “Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Free Speech, too” published in the New York Times by Sophie Downes, Downes argues in response to a letter sent out by the dean of the University of Chicago. The letter states that safe spaces and trigger warnings were an issue deterring students from having free speech and therefore would not be supported on the Chicago campus anymore. Downes argues that the letter was just a poor attempt to advert attention away from the real issues on the campus—ones that the dean will not meet with student council about and will not talk about at all. Sophie Downes argues that safe spaces and trigger warnings actually encourage free space and enhance support and community—two values that the dean said were deterred by the existence of them.

As a class, we mainly fell into the category of those who would not tell a professor if they had any concerns regarding a class. The standard here with the usage of trigger warnings is how do we as a society know what actually will require a trigger warning. If no one has a standard, then the policy would be mocked for being too lackadaisical. I see trigger warnings being necessary in some situations where I would want to know if something graphic is going to be shown to me. We came across two definitions of safe spaces in the class: 1) an actual physical safe space and 2) an ideological safe space. The concern with the physical safe space is that it seems more reductive or childish, which interestingly enough is how the Baby Boomers assess our generation.

After reading the article I concur with the author’s views on colleges coddling students who are offended by words or small actions is doing more harm than good. The article covered the issues in detail and gave many examples of the conception before the 1980’s when children could roam free in the world with less worry for parents to where next generation who had more protective parents because of the increase of kidnappings, removal of physical activities in school, school shootings, and bullying after the 1980’s.The authors discuss how coddling is not good for students, society, the workplace, government or the future. Coddling removes cognitive thinking and the use of good critical thinking skills. Coddling will force students to think with emotion instead of logic. Society will not always bend over backwards to appease ones feelings or change to make someone feel comfortable. Thinking with emotions can create a fog that can hinder ones view of reality.

The issuing of trigger warnings, according to the American Association of Professors, can be counterproductive. “The voluntary use of trigger warnings…assume that individuals will respond negatively to certain content,” which leads to reducing students to vulnerable victims rather than full participants in class discussions or debates. Trigger warnings are thus inadequate, “reasonable accommodations should be done on individual basis” rather than exposing students to trigger warnings that might affect how they view a material that has educational value.

Buddhists and Stoics from the past always believed in reducing attachments, thinking more clearly, and finding release from emotional torments (Lukianoff and Haidt 6). Today, many college students believe in the opposite. In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt discuss the new surge of microaggressions, trigger warnings, and policy changes being made on college campuses throughout the United States. College students who are attempting to block themselves from all offensive matters and are having people punished for microaggressions are, in my opinion, ridiculous. I believe the use of cognitive behavioral therapy is the best way to handle triggers and offenses, and college students need to stop

“A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense” (Lukianoff and Haidt 44). Colleges are sheltering their students from words and ideas that students do not like or are found to be offensive. Affecting their education and cognitive skills, scientists are warning colleges to refrain from coddling the students and allowing other viewpoints to be spoken. People are speaking their minds, saying their own views; however, some people are over sensitive and take these viewpoints offensively. In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt successfully argues using rhetorical questions, specific examples, and affective visuals that protecting college students from words and ideas deteriorates their education and mental health.

The topic of trigger warnings have been a hot topic amongst people. Trigger warnings are a warning or a statement that the following material or phrases could be harmful to the psyche of certain individuals about to experience the material. This spans across the average worker to professors at universities. This topic rose from about 2011 on the internet and has reached a high to where people are discussing their thoughts on the matter. Everyone has a stance on whether trigger warnings should be issued when discussing a potential topic that could cause distress for a student or anyone in a class. With the rise of mental health disorders being diagnosed in students, some seek professional help or a better diagnosis because of there helpfulness. Students have been at odds sometimes because of trigger warnings. The debate on whether or not to implicate them in a classroom setting is the main topic of the argument.

Not just triggers warning but any warning can be taking offensive. Like telling students how to block off days to do their studies, to help reduce the numbers of students that come unprepared. But a student might take offense to that thanking they are telling them they need to block off more time because they're not smart enough to do the material in a short amount of time. Talking about students that occasional use trigger warnings are not as naïve as made out to be he is showing people with sick or thin skin can be OK with words, only people with post dramatic stress disorder can be affected and it's human to engage others with empathy.

For example, “censoring this material is a bad idea, and providing context is the best avenue for explaining why” (Hanlon). As you can see, when certain things are not taught in our culture, it becomes a trigger warning and along the line, someone is hurting from it because our culture says “NO”. Furthermore, the purpose of trigger warnings is to have students react to stuff that will make them uncomfortable and this can help us catch problems before they become “catastrophes” (Hanlon). To sum up, our society makes it tough to present trigger warnings, therefore leaving those who are in need of help left

Lukianoff and Haidt also discuss their opinion on the use of “trigger warnings” (2015). Trigger warnings are said to be words that warn students of the use of graphic content in class. Trigger warnings are

Trigger statements are becoming more and more popular in syllabi, especially on college campuses. These provide students, especially those with post-traumatic stress disorder, with a warning about possibly uncomfortable content that could cause a flashback or panic attack. There are several different opinions about trigger warnings. Jenny Jarvie, the author of the article “Trigger Happy,” believes that they have gone too far and are a detriment to society (Jarvie 6). To enhance Jarvie’s point further, in their article “The Coddling of the American Mind” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explain how trigger warnings cause metal illness on campuses across the country. The opposing view is that they are necessary to have a fulfilling learning

In Lindsay Holmes’s article “A Quick Lesson on What Trigger Warnings Actually Do,” she states that trigger warnings are misinterpreted cautions notifying whether or not a discussion could cause emotional distress, and often are not implemented for this reason. Holmes begins by recounting when the University of Chicago announced they would not be focusing on Trigger Warnings or safe places; although the university later tells expresses that their initial statement was misinterpreted, the author uses this to open the discussion on the importance of trigger warnings.

Lindsay Holmes’s “A Quick Lesson On What Trigger Warnings Actually Do” is a persuasive piece written in response to the backlash that The University of Chicago received against implementing trigger warnings for their students. Likewise, Holmes sets up her argument in the hopes of persuading the general population the importance of creating safe zones and use trigger warnings for those who need them. In order to do this, Holmes uses a series of rhetorical devices throughout her essay to develop her argument for the use of trigger warnings. Holmes achieves her goal of persuading the audience that trigger warnings should be taken into consideration through her intentional use of rhetorical appeals, anticipated objections, and hypophoras in this essay.