This was originally posted in the Luther College student newspaper, Chips, in the fall of 2015. Given the often fearful climate of today, and the crucial discussions we must commit to having in those ahead of us, it felt appropriate to reignite the conversations around trigger warnings and understanding the difference between being sensitive to those we love, and fearing the uncomfortable to the point where learning and ideological growth is stalemated.
In a society where 7-8 percent of Americans will experience Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder at some point in their lives (according to the National Center for PTSD), it seems a powerful human instinct to protect the mental health of those around us. High profile cases of extreme traumas have been rising in numbers throughout the 21st century, and it begs the question: how do we protect students from the vast array of potentially disturbing literature surrounding us? How do we keep those we love from being triggered?
The answer has been to put warning labels on all works, whether online or in print, alerting readers or viewers to the topic of impending violence or abuse. These “trigger” warnings exist as a visual acknowledgment of the all too frequent emotional or physical traumas people experience throughout their lives, and mean to protect those traumatized from further destructive reactions.
Young adults these days seem to have experienced an almost unheard of amount of psychologically damaging events. Colleges and other sources that warn their audiences of touchy subjects in many ways could and should be commended for raising the awareness of individuals’ painful pasts, and searching for ways to keep students not only in class, but mentally safe.
However, while in theory a caring approach, potential overuse of trigger warnings raise a concern amongst especially collegiate academic departments (such as Luther’s Paideia program): are we overprotecting our students? If we never allow them to address topics outside of their safe zone, will they ever be intellectually challenged in the way college students should be?
Past required summer readings for incoming Luther College students have involved scenes of sexual violence and other disturbing matter; however, neither included a trigger warning. The question at hand lies with if this was the appropriate action (or lack thereof) taken for academic purposes.
Mike Garcia, writing director of Luther College, works closely with the all-college required History and English course, known as Paideia, and its many sections. He, like many others, sees both the benefit and detriment of utilizing such warnings. “Students may have this genuine trauma in their lives. You need to be aware that this is a perfectly legitimate thing to be concerned about,” he says. “But there are a couple of well-known cases across the nation, though somewhat rare, of students exploiting the trigger warning. They walk into the classroom with a set of beliefs and they use the trigger warning as a way to avoid reading something that may upset those beliefs.”
Many college students also agree that trigger warnings’ usage can be circumstantial; for example, when students are not warned of explicit material present in a reading or film, it can certainly create an uncomfortable environment. But other times, a warning may allow students time to mentally manipulate defensives that snuff conversation before it can begin.
Along with the concern of students using a trigger warning itself as an explicit reasoning for missing class work and discussion, there is a fear that the current generation of high school and college students is the most coddled or over protected. Our parents want to protect us from the terror in the world, and in doing so may be creating more harm; how can we ever possibly battle the terror if we aren’t aware of it in all of its intersecting facets?
“Where does free speech stop? And you have to be free in your classrooms,” says Luther psychology professor Stephanie Travers. “I think you have a responsibility to let students know up front that you will be dealing with sensitive topics over the course of the semester.” A general consensus among both faculty and students is that tunnel vision about work may halt critical discussion/further learning.
The prevalent argument is this: yes, we have a responsibility to protect our students’ psyches, but if we always choose to avoid sensitive topics when in protective college bubbles, how can we be expected to handle those same topics when they come to us at full force in the “real world”?
