The solution to the trigger warning debate in colleges does not have to be this difficult. Trigger warnings are teacher alerts for students of when there will be potentially disturbing images or subjects discussed in the classroom. We live in a time where communication is easier than ever, so why not have a system in which students and teachers can communicate to resolve individual conflicts, rather than large schoolwide rulings. The way I see it if students and teachers communicated directly, the right of free speech can be protected, while preventing what may result in a panic attack in the middle of the classroom and everyone could just focus on learning.

The arguments against trigger warnings usually focus on two main topics: freedom of speech and coddling students.

Freedom of speech, protected by the first amendment, is key to a student's education. If students need to learn something, no one should be able to censor that curriculum. Some students have demanded the removal of The Great Gatsby for depicting misogyny and physical abuse, despite the book's fame and status as a literary landmark. This censorship then extends to classroom debate as people stop themselves from speaking in class because there is a chance it might offend someone. A professor writing an essay for Vox had the headline, “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me”. If you want a public speaker or performer to appear on your campus, no one should be able to restrict the person you want to listen to because they do not want to listen.

Earlier this year DePaul University had a clash between controversial conservative speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, and various liberal students. This led to the university not allowing Milo, as well as various other controversial speakers, to ever speak on the campus again. To prevent any similar incidents The University of Chicago took a stance against trigger warnings saying, "Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own."

The topic of safe spaces conveniently leads to the other argument against trigger warnings: coddling students. Safe spaces can be defined as, “A place where usually people who are marginalized to some degree can come together and communicate and dialogue and unpack their experiences.” There are many people who want to transform colleges into safe spaces, but there are also people who do not think colleges should be safe spaces. In the same memo as quoted before, the University of Chicago says, "You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort." People against trigger warnings are against codling because they believe it leaves the students weaker. That without debate or exposure the college system is not as effective and does not prepare the student for the real world.

The argument for trigger warnings is much simpler: don't be a jerk.

I think it is important to differentiate between censorship and trigger warnings. There are students who believe that colleges should be safe spaces and all offensive curriculum should be removed, but that is not the same as people who support trigger warnings. Trigger warnings do not necessarily have to result in an obvious breach of someone's freedom of speech or right to an education.

According to a survey by NPR, fifty one percent of professors across the United States have used trigger warnings; most teachers saying they do it because they want to, not because the schools or students demanded it. The teachers that have used trigger warnings do it because they think it is right, and believe that it has no real detrimental effects. ¨None of the professors we talked to said that they had had a student try to get out of an assignment or skip a class because of topics that made them uncomfortable. The most common response to a warning was either nothing at all, or at most, for a student to excuse him or herself from class for a few minutes.” This is the intended effect of trigger warnings, not to coddle students or to censor campuses, but to help out those who have suffered.

My solution is not like the full one sided conclusions of the University of Chicago to completely ban trigger warnings, or the school wide buckling of DePaul University. My solution is personalized. From the NPR survey we know that the trigger warning process can be easy, so let it be easy. The twenty first century has created so many technologies to facilitate communication, so I say we use it. I say that it is the student's responsibility to talk to the teacher if a subject matter puts them at risk of triggering a past traumatic event. A personal email or meeting after class (no public embarrassment) to let your teacher know that you suffer from some form of PTSD and that you would like to be warned if there will be certain content. If the teacher purposefully ignores the talk, then they can be held accountable by the school. If the teacher is worried about the student using it as an excuse not to do work, then they can ask for medical proof of the student’s history. No need for censorship and all discussions for curriculum removal can be personalized. Banning all subjects that might someday trigger someone is no solution, but neither is suddenly (without warning) playing a 1 hour long loop of machine gun firing in front of a class of veterans with PTSD. The solution is going to have to lie somewhere in between preserving the education system and helping those in need.