US students request 'trigger warnings' on literature

[dust1n]

When are people going to realize they are not all special snowflakes and the rest of society is not going to cater to their every need?

I'm not sure the tens of thousands of veteran students necessarily see themselves as special with, say, a graphic depiction of 1984 when limbs are torn off people from helicopter fire on television and blood pours everywhere might make them want to know ahead of time that such thing will occur. At least if we talking about in class readings, or especially movies, which seems to be the original concern.

 

[Drolefille]

Insisting that they can't be used as thus is naivete.

So how about prohibiting censorship while also being courteous to rape victims?

Your argument is like to not rating movies because we wouldn't want to keep people from seeing whatever they like, without realizing that some people want to know what kind of movie they're seeing.

Except in this case they're being required to read the books/watch the movies, by a professor who knows the material. The professors already know what's being taught, the students will be reading it regardless, and any "concerned censoring citizen" has managed to protest countless works without a handy list at the top. Harry Potter didn't have a trigger warning for witchcraft and yet it was still protested/censored. It seems based on your posts you're more concerned about special snowflakes than you are about actual censorship.

Additionally there's nothing like banning a book to make sure /teens/college students read it. Perhaps we should ban more books.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So how about prohibiting censorship while also being courteous to rape victims?

Then it should be up to their instructor to warn them of content. I see no reason to put some sort of warning on the material itself.

 

[Drolefille]

Then it should be up to their instructor to warn them of content. I see no reason to put some sort of warning on the material itself.

I don't think a sticker literally on the book is what is neccessarily being requested here. Providing it in the syllabus would be equally effective. Even then your argument is like avoiding DNA research because GATTACA might happen. Or not vaccinating for HPV because people MIGHT be less sexually responsible.

It's supposition and worrying about what MIGHT happen instead of being certain to stand against the negative effects of good policy, technology, or medicine.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I don't think a sticker literally on the book is what is neccessarily being requested here. Providing it in the syllabus would be equally effective. Even then your argument is like avoiding DNA research because GATTACA might happen. Or not vaccinating for HPV because people MIGHT be less sexually responsible.

It's supposition and worrying about what MIGHT happen instead of being certain to stand against the negative effects of good policy, technology, or medicine.

You don't avoid DNA research to prevent GATTACA, you just have to conduct responsible research to prevent it.

And this policy may be irresponsible.

But what does happen if an instructor is forced to provide a trigger warning? We set limits on that instructor and give the student authority over the instructor. The student can now tell the instructor that the instructor may not teach them certain material because it might hurt their feelings or cause trauma.

 

[Drolefille]

You don't avoid DNA research to prevent GATTACA, you just have to conduct responsible research to prevent it.

And this policy may be irresponsible.

But what does happen if an instructor is forced to provide a trigger warning? We set limits on that instructor and give the student authority over the instructor. The student can now tell the instructor that the instructor may not teach them certain material because it might hurt their feelings or cause trauma.

The leap from "provide a warning" to "gives student authority over the instructor" and "can tell the instructor not to teach them material" is illogical.

You're assuming it as a given. If universities don't allow students to do this now after a student, say, gets online and finds out there's rape in a book, why would they start after providing warnings.

Trigger warnings aren't for "things you don't like" like gay sex or something they're for "things that may trigger panic attacks/flashbacks/etc." The effort to provide them is minimal.

 

[steeltoes]

Maybe when The Bible is covered with warnings they will get the message.

 

[Drolefille]

Maybe when The Bible is covered with warnings they will get the message.

Yes, ha ha, the joke's gone around for a while.

But who do you want to get what message?

 

[no-body]

I'm not sure the tens of thousands of veteran students necessarily see themselves as special with, say, a graphic depiction of 1984 when limbs are torn off people from helicopter fire on television and blood pours everywhere might make someone one to know ahead of time that such thing will occur. At least if we talking about in class readings, or especially movies, which seems to be the original concern.

That should be on the students to do their research on the subject matter and then pull aside the professor to discuss it if it bothers them.

I understand the reasoning behind it, it's motivated by good intentions but it's unrealistic to cater to so many people. You can't legislate feelings. Doing so leads to a slippery slope.

Maybe such people should spend more money on therapy than schooling if they are that sensitive.

 

[YmirGF]

Though I do understand how this could be quite valid in regards to some subject matter, it could opening a can of worms. Do we include religious sensitivities too?

 

[Revoltingest]

Though I do understand how this could be quite valid in regards to some subject matter, it could opening a can of worms. Do we include religious sensitivities too?

I can see it now...
CAUTION:
This material contains smiting, gross bugs, murder, drowning,
oppression, nudity, burning, & love without a happy ending.

 

[Drolefille]

That should be on the students to do their research on the subject matter and then pull aside the professor to discuss it if it bothers them.

I understand the reasoning behind it, it's motivated by good intentions but it's unrealistic to cater to so many people. You can't legislate feelings. Doing so leads to a slippery slope.

Maybe such people should spend more money on therapy than schooling if they are that sensitive.

PTSD isn't "being sensitive."

 

[dust1n]

That should be on the students to do their research on the subject matter and then pull aside the professor to discuss it if it bothers them.

I understand the reasoning behind it, it's motivated by good intentions but it's unrealistic to cater to so many people. You can't legislate feelings. Doing so leads to a slippery slope.

Again, PTSD flashbacks do not qualify as "feelings." An additional one to two words on a syllabus per book is not some unrealistic, unsolvable dilemma. Most schools aren't about to close to doors because of ink costs.

Maybe such people should spend more money on therapy than schooling if they are that sensitive.

Joking aside, one really shouldn't be forced to choose between their own education and their own access to mental health. That doesn't really seem to solve anything at all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have yet to see any ratings system that actually works. There are is so much involved behind the scenes in what goes into a rating, music, cable TV or regular TV, movies, video games, or whatever, any ratings system I have seen is far from consistent and it never has the intended effects anyways.

Except in this case they're being required to read the books/watch the movies, by a professor who knows the material. The professors already know what's being taught, the students will be reading it regardless, and any "concerned censoring citizen" has managed to protest countless works without a handy list at the top. Harry Potter didn't have a trigger warning for witchcraft and yet it was still protested/censored. It seems based on your posts you're more concerned about special snowflakes than you are about actual censorship.

The Harry Potter thing is my concern. The book has no real witchcraft rituals, nothing Satanic, nothing that is even remotely innappropriate for its primary child/young teen audience, yet what if it were to be labeled with a "witchcraft" or "Satanic" trigger because the same widely misinformed parents who never read the books who had them added to the banned list want the triggers on them because they think bad things are in it? There is also the documentary Bully, which turned very political over its rating because it including "too much" R-rated language, even though the kids in the documentary do not get to have someone make sure they don't have to hear those words from their classmates. Or the PMRC, who thought it their duty to warn parents of not only sex and violence is in music, but of "occult themes" as well. Professor sensitivity and considerations is one thing, but we can't pad the world the protect everyone who may or may-not be sensitive to something, especially when much of the padding is done by people who believe it their political and/or moral duty to pick through things and label things as those of a similar background would label them and to find things that those who share similar beliefs will find offensive.

 

[no-body]

PTSD isn't "being sensitive."

I never said it was but if you allow for warnings anyone who doesn't like something is going to start chiming in you can't just limit it to those with ptsd. The article lists colonialism as a trigger warning for christs sake.

Again, PTSD flashbacks do not qualify as "feelings." An additional one to two words on a syllabus per book is not some unrealistic, unsolvable dilemma. Most schools aren't about to close to doors because of ink costs.

Joking aside, one really shouldn't be forced to choose between their own education and their own access to mental health. That doesn't really seem to solve anything at all.

It should still be on the students. The school can maybe offer something on the side with the info like you would if you where blind or deaf and had special needs.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

US students request 'trigger warnings' on literature | Books | theguardian.com

To be fair, many of the younger generation of kids who have been raised from birth sheltered from any and all discomfort and unpleasantness may have a hard time being able to handle and absorb adult topics. Perhaps, these works should first be reviewed by their parents, and then they can filter out any of the intense bits that they feel their college-aged child can't cope with.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Seems to me like the student in question, if he or she knows they have an issue with this sort of thing could look up the plot beforehand. I am not sure how you as a publisher are going to know beforehand what might possibly 'trigger' someone. This seems like it just may open up a bunch of grounds for litigation if a precedence is set.

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on you. On the name of learning, one would not go to Ukraine or Libya etc without briefing.

Read the label, it might contain 'literary caffeine, a little'.

 

[dust1n]

To be fair, many of the younger generation of kids who have been raised from birth sheltered from any and all discomfort and unpleasantness may have a hard time being able to handle and absorb adult topics. Perhaps, these works should first be reviewed by their parents, and then they can filter out any of the intense bits that they feel their college-aged child can't cope with.

I'm not sure how being raped, injured in a war, or senseless violated qualifies as being "sheltered."

 

[dust1n]

It should still be on the students. The school can maybe offer something on the side with the info like you would if you where blind or deaf and had special needs.

If a "syllabus" qualifies as something on the side, then I really don't see where we have approached any sort of disagreement.