Academic freedom has a long history with higher education in the United States and has impacted institutional mission statements, as well as the role of faculty members (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, pg. 286). Kaplin and Lee argue that academic freedom has definitions based in education, as well as law. When examining the educational component of the definition, they write, "educators usually use the term with reference to the customs and practices by which, and the aspirations with which, faculties may best flourish in their work as teachers and researchers" (pg. 286). The practice and policies pertaining to trigger warnings may help to further this, as the definition makes reference to "flourishing as teachers". One way to flourish as a teacher is …show more content…
Findings from an Inside Higher Ed article share that trigger warnings are, "already having a chilling effect on their teaching and pedagogy" (as cited in Lukianoff and Haidt, 2015, pg. 15). In some instances, professors have seen that trigger warning practices limit what they are able to teach and how they are able to teach, and in some instances feeling as though some material must be completely eliminated from the course. This could result in faculty feeling as though they are not able to fully complete their job. Additionally, it could result in turbulent relationships with institutional administrators. Some professors have reported that deans and administrators have reached out to them regarding the material that they taught, regardless of whether or not they used a trigger warning (as cited in Lukianoff and Haidt). Depending on the extent of the trigger warning practices and policies, some faculty members may feel as though they cannot teach without fear that they of being reported to administrators. This could be especially troublesome given the content information and discussions taking place in academic settings. Justice William J. Brenner, Jr. described the classroom being a "marketplace of ideas" (as cited in O'Neil, 2016, pg. 42). Some may argue that trigger warning practices and policies would have the potential to alter the role that the classroom serves, with the risk of eliminating the role of classrooms as being a location for the free exchange of thoughts and
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.
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.
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.
The following cases are utilized: Pickering v. Board of Education, Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, Connick v. Myers, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeir, and Garcetti v. Ceballos. The case, Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court acknowledged teachers have the right to voice personal views as they relate to issues of public concern (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014). More specifically, “The Pickering case is one of the most influential court cases concerned with the balancing of teacher’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression against the state’s interest in promoting efficient schools” (DeMitchell & DeMitchell, 1990, p 385). If a teachers voices personal views that are damaging to coworkers, school procedures, ones’ occupational performance, and does not directly relate to public concerns there will be grounds for disciplinary actions (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014). This constitutional rights stands both inside and outside of the classroom, as educators can utilize various methods of communication, such as social media, written artifacts, visual relics, and expressive language. In the case, Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier, a teacher’s personal opinion can be expressed within the contours of a classroom when applicable to pedagogical reasons. More specifically, “Reasoning that the teachers was speaking for the school, the court concluded that teachers are not entitled to express views in the classroom that are counter to the adopted curriculum” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 242). If the topic discussed within the classroom is controversial in nature it must be censored, thus deeming appropriate to a youthful audience. In conclusion, it is imperative for educators to ‘think before they speak,’ as their actions can have detrimental impacts on key stakeholders as well as their
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.
“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.
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
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 his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.
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.
The First Amendment of The Constitution of the United States gives people the right of free speech; the freedom to express one’s own thoughts and opinions freely without repercussion. So, in theory, allowing people to show and present whatever they choose to do so is following that amendment. But, people now have become more sensitive to content and become offended more easily. Professors and teachers give presentations in class on a daily basis to meet the requirements of teaching the materials of the class. The argument straightaway is that presentations, videos, documents, etc., should include what is called a “trigger warning” beforehand to warn
Trigger warnings allow rules and policies to overtake curriculums inside the classroom. Therefore, trigger warnings damage the academic freedom for students that feel that they have been offended on a certain content. Academic freedom is when people articulate
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.
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.
The idea of “academic freedom” in American higher education is a fairly new concept. Before a recent change in educational practices, religious ideals were deeply rooted in higher education curriculum. By the late-twentieth century, however, the idea of academic freedom became more prevalent across the higher education community. As a result, the influence of religion played a lesser role in the development of curriculum across colleges and universities as professors seized their newly granted academic freedom. With the advent of the modern liberal movement in the United States, the atmosphere in colleges and universities has become increasingly oppressive of Christianity in the name of “academic freedom”. This issue was effectively