trigger warnings… yet again (american university student gov. edition)

[icehorse]

This just feels wrong to me - very Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron.

The summary is that a student organization is demanding that all course descriptions include “trigger warnings” so that students who have “suffered trauma” can still participate in academia. The question that leaps to mind for me is how such a warning would affect the actual teaching of the class. Sounds like some censoring would have to be involved. ugh!

I’m not the first to say that students thus shielded will be ill-prepared for the real world.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...-launches-campaign-mandatory-trigger-warnings

I’ve yet to hear a pro-TW argument that compels me…

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not sure what the problem is. Faculty members who teach courses covering sensitive topics may, at their discretion, disclose that on their course syllabus. This would affect a fairly small number of courses at a typical university. So... what's the big deal here? I don't get it.

 

[Sunstone]

I think it goes a bit too far to require professors to provide trigger warnings since it is fairly impossible to predict all the things that might trigger at least one person. But in consideration of people who have suffered trauma and might be triggered by some course content, I think professors should be encouraged to voluntarily provide trigger warnings -- at their sole discretion -- for course content that they suspect is reasonably likely to trigger someone. I don't see such a policy of encouraging professors to provide trigger warnings as placing too much of a burden on them, and I think it would benefit folks who have suffered trauma.

As for preparing students for life outside of the university, I don't see how that's a real issue here. I presume that students who have experienced trauma are already well aware of what life without trigger warnings is like for them, given how unlikely it is they've been raised wholly in ignorance of their society and culture.

 

[Rival]

Trigger warnings are for whiny bumholes who can't grow up and accept reality. I was molested as a child and I don't need 'trigger warnings'.

 

[icehorse]

I'm not sure what the problem is. Faculty members who teach courses covering sensitive topics may, at their discretion, disclose that on their course syllabus. This would affect a fairly small number of courses at a typical university. So... what's the big deal here? I don't get it.

Can you clarify whether you don't get why I'm concerned or why the students are concerned?

 

[icehorse]

I think it goes a bit too far to require professors to provide trigger warnings since it is fairly impossible to predict all the things that might trigger at least one person. But in consideration of people who have suffered trauma and might be triggered by some course content, I think professors should be encouraged to voluntarily provide trigger warnings -- at their sole discretion -- for course content that they suspect is reasonably likely to trigger someone. I don't see such a policy of encouraging professors to provide trigger warnings as placing too much of a burden on them, and I think it would benefit folks who have suffered trauma.

As for preparing students for life outside of the university, I don't see how that's a real issue here. I presume that students who have experienced trauma are already well aware of what life without trigger warnings is like for them, given how unlikely it is they've been raised wholly in ignorance of their society and culture.

I think a sneaky implication here is that it could allow students to censor course content.

 

[Sunstone]

Trigger warnings are for whiny bumholes who can't grow up and accept reality. I was molested as a child and I don't need 'trigger warnings'.

Disdain for those less fortunate than you is an admirable trait, especially when it in no way inconveniences you if some professor provides a trigger warning for people who might benefit from one.

 

[Perditus]

These kind of things are outright stupid, but I suppose one must deal with them.

My approach would be a disclaimer at the top of the syllabus distributed on the first day of class.

"I'm going to tell you the truth whether it hurts you or not, whether you like it or not. DEAL WITH IT."

 

[Sunstone]

I think a sneaky implication here is that it could allow students to censor course content.

Ah! Well, that would be game changer. But until and unless that threat becomes concrete, I don't see a reason to oppose voluntary trigger warnings.

 

[Sunstone]

These kind of things are outright stupid, but I suppose one must deal with them.

My approach would be a disclaimer at the top of the syllabus distributed on the first day of class.

"I'm going to tell you the truth whether it hurts you or not, whether you like it or not. DEAL WITH IT."

If I were an Iraqi combat vet who suffered from PTSD and I saw that statement on your syllabus, I might wonder just how much actual truth you knew about combat, or about PTSD, and just why you thought yourself in a position to teach me any real truths about those things.

 

[icehorse]

Ah! Well, that would be game changer. But until and unless that threat becomes concrete, I don't see a reason to oppose voluntary trigger warnings.

So, for the sake of discussion, let's say a trigger warning is issued. And let's say this is the only class offered on this subject. What would the traumatized student do? I think the implication (in the video), is that the student will gain some control over the course content.

 

[Quintessence]

Can you clarify whether you don't get why I'm concerned or why the students are concerned?

I don't quite understand why you are concerned about faculty and staff choosing to include sensitivity statements on course syllabi at their discretion for the small portion of courses where that would be important.

 

[Sunstone]

So, for the sake of discussion, let's say a trigger warning is issued. And let's say this is the only class offered on this subject. What would the traumatized student do? I think the implication (in the video), is that the student will gain some control over the course content.

I don't think a student, no matter how traumatized, has a right to unilaterally alter course content beyond, say, personally declining to view, read, etc the material that might trigger them, and then accepting whatever consequences that might have for their grades and, more importantly, their education.

 

[Quintessence]

If I were an Iraqi combat vet who suffered from PTSD and I saw that statement on your syllabus, I might wonder just how much actual truth you knew about combat, or about PTSD, and just why you thought yourself in a position to teach me any real truths about those things.

More importantly, the student should seriously question the appropriateness of such a statement in a syllabus and bring it to the attention of the department chair. A statement like "I'm going to tell you the truth whether it hurts you or not, whether you like it or not. DEAL WITH IT" would be grounds for disciplinary action against that faculty or staff member. And rightly so.

 

[Acim]

Trigger warnings fascinate me. The topic does. I wanna understand how this became so prevalent. I get that broad strokes can be painted, and I'm likely to join in the chorus that thinks them rather dumb, but the idea that higher education truly sees good reason for them is what interests me. Plus, how that could lead to students being graded differently.

Like I took class in college on the Holocaust. I'd imagine that class would've had in today's climate, trigger warning galore. So, say a student opts out of classes where warnings were provided and they didn't wish to deal with stress/discomfort from the content being presented? I don't know if "opt out" is even an option, but I imagine if warning is given, the student has 'right' to not be present in class that is going over that content. Thus, not exposed to say 30% of all course material. Come test / report time, I would think that absence would be visible, though not sure.

I think I'm mostly fascinated at this point because of who gets decide what a trigger warning is. I think it possible, but acknowledge the absurdity, in it could be anything that triggers someone. Yet, if there were somehow 'universal' understanding of it being absurd, then that strikes me as amounting to: we know better what will offend you than you do. As that might be debatable, I'd like to enter into that discussion for that strikes me as near the actual core of this topic, than some notion that it ought to be obvious what is, and what is not legitimate topics warranting trigger warnings.

I could say more (as it relates to my experience with education/learning), but prefer to tackle the stuff I think is at the core of this issue.

 

[Acim]

If I were an Iraqi combat vet who suffered from PTSD and I saw that statement on your syllabus, I might wonder just how much actual truth you knew about combat, or about PTSD, and just why you thought yourself in a position to teach me any real truths about those things.

Why would that experience matter though? I might wonder how much actual truth anyone knows about anything, and just why anyone thinks they are in a position to teach me any (so called) real truths about anything. And then use trigger warnings as way to bring that up, to my advantage, as it suits me.

After rereading what I wrote (about 3 times), I do think it nice to suggest something being taught might be sensitive for some people, but I'm unclear where that line needs to be drawn. I truly do think it possible to be offended by anything at all. The idea that it is 'more reasonable' in some situations than others is what fascinates me.

Like if Creationist is in class covering evolution/global warming, who's to say the material being presented is not legitimately offensive to that student and (constantly) deserving trigger warnings? And that's me choosing a rather obvious example. If teaching 2+2=4, I am saying that could be offensive to someone, and who's to say otherwise?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Why would that experience matter though? I might wonder how much actual truth anyone knows about anything, and just why anyone thinks they are in a position to teach me any (so called) real truths about anything. And then use trigger warnings as way to bring that up, to my advantage, as it suits me.

After rereading what I wrote (about 3 times), I do think it nice to suggest something being taught might be sensitive for some people, but I'm unclear where that line needs to be drawn. I truly do think it possible to be offended by anything at all. The idea that it is 'more reasonable' in some situations than others is what fascinates me.

Like if Creationist is in class covering evolution/global warming, who's to say the material being presented is not legitimately offensive to that student and (constantly) deserving trigger warnings? And that's me choosing a rather obvious example. If teaching 2+2=4, I am saying that could be offensive to someone, and who's to say otherwise?

I think the line needs to be drawn based on professional, scholarly knowledge concerning PTSD, trauma, etc. Certainly not based on the "knowledge" of anyone who tries to sound all tough and educated by dismissing others' concerns and potential need for such warnings.

 

[Perditus]

Trigger warnings, safe spaces - pure childishness.

The snowflakes need to grow up.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Trigger warnings, safe spaces - pure childishness.

The snowflakes need to grow up.

Please list what you know about why some people use trigger warnings for PTSD, trauma, etc. (The only reason I'm not going to ask you to list what you know about safe spaces as well is that I know that would be off topic.)

Awaiting your response.

 

[Sunstone]

Trigger warnings, safe spaces - pure childishness.

The snowflakes need to grow up.

It's interesting that you don't see your own attitude as immature. Respect and concern for people who can neither hurt nor benefit us seems to be. like single malt whiskey, an adult taste.