The Letter Sent By Dean John Ellison

Erwin Chemerinsky describes the main opposing views on this issue in his book Free Speech on Campus, “One derides all efforts to protect students from the effects of offensive or disrespectful speech as “coddling” and “politically correctness.” The other side

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.

With a wide variety of people on colleges campuses, it is almost impossible to please everybody; whether it comes to class times, bus schedules, or grading rules, somebody is upset. As well as these smaller issues, more controversial arguments come into play. One of these arguments is against free speech zones on college campuses. These zones restrict speech to a specific area on campus, however, still allowing any type of group to express their beliefs to anybody passing. Some claim these zones as unconstitutional because it restricts a student’s right to free speech. However, others view the zones as helpful in controlling protests and current tensions on campus. Open speech across campus is incredibly difficult to monitor because of the enormous size of current day campuses and the immense amount of different views. In the past, there have been situations relating to violent protesting and negative speech across campuses. Because of this, campuses have begun enforcing free speech zones in which students and faculty may verbally express their beliefs.

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.

If trigger warnings are not provided, it is essentially sending a message to students with trauma that they are not welcome to participate.

“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.

Authors of both articles disagree the suppressing and censoring of free speech observed in some universities. While Rampell is disheartened by violent reactions of students upon reading a conservative essay written by a ‘moderate conservative’ in a student newspaper, Stone and Creeley are worried, in general, about the broader measures of censoring free speech across universities. Rampell, in particular, had direct access to the writer of the conservative essay, which gave her a deeper understanding of the actual reactions and subsequent happenings. Stone and Creeley had off hand access to the past happenings of three individual cases of censoring free speech expressions by teaching faculties. In one case, a university dissented to a faculty member’s published essay on

“Over the years, courts have ruled that college officials may set up reasonable rules to regulate the ‘time, place and manner” that the free speech can occur, as long as the rules are “content neutral,’ meaning they apply equally to all sides of issues” (Fisher, 2008). Speech codes and free speech zones on campus do exist for many reasons: many of the causes or topics that students or others looking to interact with students take up are controversial and can frequently take on less of an academic or social justice overtone and more of a hateful one. Hate speech is the greatest threat to freedom of speech on college campuses, and the limitations colleges and universities put on student’s verbal freedoms are largely in place as efforts to avoid it. Religion, in particular, is a hot topic on campuses and it has an unfortunate tendency to become more aggressive and argumentative than universities would like. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object.

Trigger warnings are hurting mental health on campus according to Lukianoff and Haidt. For instance, Lukianoff and Haidt say that critical thinking involves students to question their own unexamined beliefs and sometimes the questioning can lead to discomfort, but this leads a way to understand. Clearly, we do not like to be put in awkward situations, but in reality, that is what has to be done, in order to learn and experience. Additionally, “Students with PTSD should of course get treatment, but they should not try to avoid normal life, with its many opportunities

Sally attended Joliet Junior College and took a general psychology class. One day when she attended her psychology class, her professor warned students of a topic that there were going to talk about in class which was how abuse can damage an individual’s mental state. Sally has been through abuse in her past and is uncomfortable with that certain topic, so she left class because she was alerted to the topic. Ultimately, she didn’t want to revisit her past of abuse. This is considered a trigger warning, in which professors give a warning about topics that they will discuss that can lead to some sort of discomfort for students. Trigger warnings are used on campuses that are considered a safe space. The term safe space is defined as an environment where students can feel like themselves and are not exposed to any harm physically or mentally (Google). Various of colleges/universities have safe spaces so that their students don’t have to go through discrimination of sorts or any harm. Safe spaces are good for students, but there are negative outcomes from it, such as it doesn’t let individuals who suffer and have trauma cope with what happened to them. Even though are negative outcomes from safe spaces, there are positive results that impact Millennials such as a decrease in anxiety and prevention of hate speech.

The most recent controversy on American college campuses today, is whether colleges should adopt trigger warnings as a way to protect students from topics of discussion or ideas that may cause them some level of discomfort for instance, a lecture about rape may disturb a student who may have been raped in their earlier life causing the student great emotional disstress. Even though trigger warnings save student from reliving a delicate past; trigger warning should not be added to college classes because students at a college level should be mentally prepared to handle harsh academic course work that may trigger their own difficult past. Trigger warnings blind ones vision to learn the truth about topics that contain disturbing truths, taking

A controversy is rising about whether or not it is appropriate to integrate the use of trigger warnings into post-secondary environments. Trigger warnings are written or verbal indications to readers or viewers that the content they are about to encounter may contain distressing material. It stands to reason that some would object to this concept saying that trigger warnings can lead to oversensitivity in students, and hinder academic freedom. However, trigger warnings can be necessary under certain circumstances, such as students coping with past trauma or those battling mental illnesses.

Conversations in the media and on college campuses regarding trigger warnings, safe spaces, and microaggressions have been impassioned, to say the least. Many have found such requests to be reasonable, because students, in essence, are seeking a respectful atmosphere in which vulnerabilities are respected and insults are not tolerated. Critics have argued that designating some spaces as “safe” implies that others are “unsafe,” and it follows, then, that these “unsafe” spaces should be made “safer.” To what end? Even those who express support wonder: where to draw the line? What topics warrant trigger warnings? Who decides what constitutes a microaggression? That certain subjects demand delicate treatment in the classroom is hardly

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