We Are Free To Be You Me Stupid And Dead By Roger Rosenblatt

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.

In Lukianoff and Haidt’s essay, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” the authors contend today’s college students want to be protected from any words that might harm them. The authors argue doing so harms them in other ways.

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.

“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.

Joel Feinberg, defines the Offense Principle as “ it is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it is probably necessary to prevent serious offense [as opposed to injury or harm] to persons other than the actor, and would probably be an effect means to that end if enacted.” (Feinberg, 1984). I believe that this principle serves as the best way to analyze R. V. Keegstra. There are many factors that fall under the Offense Principle, such as extent, duration, social value of speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, and the general interests of the community at large, however, I will only touch a few. Based off of these factors, Keegstra and Zundel should be prosecuted, but not those from “Go Yankee, go”. Zundel and “Go Yankee, go” are to be discussed in a later section of this essay.

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

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 were further popularized by the creation of the trendy blogging site Tumblr, where users can post any form of content no matter the explicit material it contains. Coining each offensive article, photograph, or piece of fiction writing with the subtext “TRIGGER WARNING” along with a brief description of what could be possibly harmful in the media became a common courtesy. In an article on the popular opinion site EveryDayFeminism, Sam Finch states [regarding those opposed to explicitly stating that the content they post might offend someone], “You’re suggesting that you just don’t care. And