Trigger Warning Research Paper

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 “The Coddling of the American Mind,” writers Greg Lukianoff and Jonathon Haidt address today’s college campus culture of oversensitivity and how targeting microaggressions by shielding sensitive topics from students may be modeling cognitive distortions. Cognitive distortion is a way our mind twists words to convince us of something that isn’t true to reinforce negative thinking. Since college administrators changed ways to try and block out microaggressions on campus it is actually teaching students to think in distorted ways. As a result, students are learning lessons that are bad for themselves and their mental health. However, Lukianoff and Haidt believe that cognitive behavioral therapy is the next big thing to teach good

The issues discussed in class: safe space and trigger warnings, coddling of the American mind are relevant to the generational group of Millennials. The media tends to showcases us, the millennials, in a negative light and describes us as overly sensitive. Our generation wants a warning towards hate words or topics that deal with abuse. Conversely the people that are against trigger warnings can be described as insensitive.

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.

Bridges’ argument in Why students need trigger warnings failed to address how some students might use trigger warnings to avoid a reading or an assignment. His personal experience with a student with trauma, though, helps incite sympathy and suggest to readers that trigger warnings are necessary to avoid further physiological harm to students. However, AAUP’s argument still sustains credibility because many professors have similar views that trigger warnings marginalize topics like sex and race and they react by avoiding those topics.

In this article, they view trigger warnings as a way of students avoiding issues that may cause them discomfort. Manne describes the idea of trigger warnings as a way to “flag content that depicted or discussed common causes of trauma, like military combat, child abuse, incest and sexual violence.” However, she says that the purpose of trigger warnings are slightly different at schools and universities. The warnings are meant to prepare students instead of bombarding them with possible triggering material. This way each student can learn instead of experiencing a panic attack which makes it “impossible to think straight.”

“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.

In the two essays, How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt and The Trigger Warning Myth by Aaron R. Hanlon, the authors have opposing sides to trigger warnings abusing mental health. Lukianoff and Haidt claim that trigger warnings hurt the mental health crisis on campus. In contrast, Hanlon argues that trigger warnings are not the problem and that is what happens when the mental challenges of students become flashpoints in our culture. I agree with both authors because mental health seems to be avoided rather than supported, therefore, trigger warnings being a problem and because our culture has made it difficult to adapt to people with mental disabilities.

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.

Trigger warnings have become a very pending and current issue with many students, as they are currently included in most college syllabi. Recently many professors have been adding such announcements to the beginning of their coursework outlines, and by doing so students are given a more accurate understanding of what the curriculum entails. They can help one avoid suffering from trauma including anxiety attacks, nightmares, and PTSD attacks, but it can also be argued that they continue the bad habit of coddling that many millennials grew up with and are accused of expecting as they enter the real world. Before examining how essential these trigger warnings are, one must first understand exactly what a trigger warning is.