Trigger Warnings Examples

After my first semester in college, I was left with a new and exciting learning experience. I engaged in discussions on controversial topics and was exposed to various reading and media material which opened me up to new perspectives. In classrooms, questions about politics, abuse, drugs, death, relationships, religion, and ethics were discussed without restrictions. I enjoyed this learning experience on the most part due to the professors announcing the topics to be discussed the first day of classes. Being fresh out of high school, such a practice relieved the transition into a new academic environment. However, I cannot solely rely on my personal experience when deciding on where to stand regarding the controversy that has students, parents, educators, and administrators in disagreement. In my research I plan to explore the controversy over the use of trigger warnings and safe spaces by analyzing both sides of the debate. My goal is to come to a conclusion concerning the proper use of trigger warnings and safe spaces; specifically, when should trigger warnings be given, where is the use of trigger warnings and safe spaces appropriate, and most importantly, what subjects should students be warned or protected from. I

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.

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.

She then goes to point out that is the reason she uses trigger warnings. She also makes a point that trigger warnings can only be beneficial. It takes minimal effort to point out that there may be triggering material in a lecture or a reading. For the students who haven’t experienced some kind of trauma, they may either brush the warning off, or it may make them realize other students may find the material triggering and “sensitize”

Arguing that coddling students from words and ideas affects the education and mental health, Lukianoff and Haidt effectively uses rhetorical questions to communicate to their audience. Lukianoff and Haidt start off by asking their audience “What are the effects of this new protectiveness on students themselves?” This rhetorical question allows the audience to be introduced to what the article will be arguing towards and allows them to contemplate on their own before the authors give their own viewpoints. The audience can consider whether over protecting students can really be harmful and if the effects can

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.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom

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.

Cognitive distortions are said to be the ways in which our brain convinces us of something that is not true. College students experience cognitive distortions more often than none. The cognitive distortions in which college students experience would include the feeling of being a failure per not doing as well as you thought you did on a test, the rules we mentally make for ourselves, or negative global labeling. Cognitive distortions are believed to make us believe that information presented to us is rational and accurate when its goal is to make us continue to feel bad about ourselves. In the article, “The coddling of the American mind”, the authors, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt examines what they believe in the fact that professors are protecting students’ minds through warnings of offensive materials, which they believe encourages students to believe that it is damaging and dangerous to discuss certain aspects of our history (2015). College students endure these and many other cognitive distortions, but we are often made to believe that these distortions are acceptable simply because students’ minds are allowed to become more open to new ideas and new people due to the toning down of the perceptual state of mind to outrage and discomfort (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015).

The professor is telling students on the first day of classes that he or she will understand if a student is not in class, which will cause students to take advantage of this. For example, if a student over sleeps and misses the first half of class, he or she will have an excuse for skipping the second half. This will diminish the students learning experience because discussing the readings in class is an important part of many courses as it provides students with a stronger understanding and an idea of other students’ opinions and interpretations of the piece. In addition, as Lukianoff and Haidt state, trigger warnings tell students that “life is dangerous, but adults will do everything in their power to protect you from harm, not just from strangers but from one another as well” which perfectly demonstrates how trigger warnings are acting as a security blanket to students (Lukianoff and Haidt).

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.