Last week, the incoming students of the University of Chicago received a letter from the dean of students welcoming them to the school.

However, in an effort to encourage the class of 2020 to adopt one of the university's values--freedom of expression in the name of academia--some of the choice words in the letter caused an uproar...in the name of academic freedom, of course.

The beginning of the letter encourages students to "speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without the fear of censorship," without being threatened, disrespected, or harassed. Many liberal arts universities today adopt this policy after Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in the late 1948. Many of us attend college ready to challenge ideas and norms, and many also end up changing our own opinions based on our studies, debates, and discussions. While it is more comfortable to be surrounded by like-minded people, intellectual pursuits cannot remain stagnant without varience of opinions.

The letter, written by Dr. John Ellison, acknowledges the occasional discomfort that may result from a community of challenging ideas. No one particularly enjoys being uncomfortable, but some slight discomfort can be allowed in the wake of academic pursuits, so it appears.

Then, Dr. Ellison, who received his PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Harvard, goes to state that for the pursuit of academic freedom,

"Our commitment to academic freedom means 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."

Here is where the torches become lit. Ellison's call for the removal of trigger warnings and safe spaces are for the good of the academic community, to push students out of their comfort zones.

Safe spaces and trigger warnings are topics of debate, especially in regards to younger generations of people. One side of the debate calls out people for being too sensitive, too easily offended, or, as pottskiller from Urban Dictionary so eloquently puts it, "weak minded people who are easily offended...who have no have no business randomly browsing the internet anyways. ... #srs #sjw #troll #trigger #tumblr #feminazi"

The other side of the debate is from a social justice standpoint, calling for a greater understanding and leniency for individuals who suffer from the effects of trauma. This is part of a new push to understand and deal with mental illness, and the individuals who suffer from it, as well as a push to understand and deal with racism, sexism, homophobia, and other issues that cause individuals to feel physically and mentally unsafe.

The argument can be summed up as such: the "People shouldn't be so easily offended" crowd vs. the "People suffering from trauma should be protected" crowd.

So, to Dr. Ellison, pottskiller, and the rest of the anti-trigger warning, anti-safe space crowd: you are missing the point.

This is not a freedom of speech debate. This is not a fear of strange ideas or perspectives. This is about the need for students to be physically safe.

The effect of a person experiencing a trigger is not being "uncomfortable." It is like you shouted "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and a person who hears you physically reacts, because their "trigger," as it is nicknamed, pulls the memory of a traumatic experience back to the front of their consciousness, causing that person to feel the effects of that experience. Triggers are very real, and very physical.

Safe spaces are designed to protect people from experiencing these circumstances, to protect people who have been through trauma, to offer them the physical safety that they need. It's not about kindness and eating cupcakes together. It's about helping students be physically safe.

When you ignore the realities of trauma, and the importance of trigger warnings, you ignore the safety of individuals who suffer from it. You invalidate their experiences and choose not to protect them.

You wouldn't ask a person whose leg was just broken to walk on it again. Don't act like someone who asks for a trigger warning is being too sensitive or too easily offended--you're asking them to run a marathon when their stitches haven't yet been taken out.

You might want to revisit that monograph on the history of debate and scandal, Dr. Ellison, which you so kindly attached to that letter. You'll need it.