By Siobhan Mulligan, Campus Carrier Features Editor
 |
| GRAPHIC BY LEO NARRISON |
What kind of welcome letter do you expect to see when you first start college? The University of Chicago’s class of 2020 was surprised to see that theirs included more than just warm wishes. The letter included a statement from Dean of Students John Ellison that the university, as part of their commitment to intellectual freedom, does not support trigger warnings on campus as they do not want to encourage censorship of controversial ideas. The letter, shared by a student on social media, sparked a nationwide debate about how to deal with sensitive topics on college campuses and whether or not trigger warnings should be part of the answer.
Many concerns stem from the idea that trigger warnings could lead to the restriction of free speech on college campuses. Students and faculty members may feel discouraged from discussing controversial subjects in classes at the risk of offending people, as it can sometimes be difficult to tell a simple difference in viewpoint from offensive or harmful rhetoric. In addition, misused trigger warnings may overstep boundaries and shelter students from difficult subjects or images that need to be discussed in light of their difficulty.
“Subjects with human content, like literature and politics and religion, that’s where the trigger warning becomes destructive,” said Peter Lawler, Dana professor in government. “Because in religion, you can’t teach the Crucifixion because it’s so gruesome, but it is gruesome. That’s the point.”
Michael Bailey, associate professor of government, is concerned that trigger warnings may have a political bias, as some may warn about issues such as racism or homophobia but neglect to warn about issues that may upset more conservative students. They also may alter students’ reactions to the topic, whether increasing the likelihood of upsetting students who otherwise would have been able to cope with the topic or desensitizing others to discussions that should have an emotional response.
The question remains of how to help students with PTSD and other mental health needs. While some trigger warnings exist to prepare students for content that offends them morally, a physiological or psychological trigger is different from a moral offense. Outside stimuli such as smells or sights may prompt the recollection of certain memories.
“Sometimes triggers can be things like smells,” said senior Daniel Boddie. “You can smell peppermint and think of candy canes at Christmas – they don’t necessarily have to be bad things.”
However, his experience working with survivors of sexual assault led him to discover that this kind of recollection can take severely different forms in people with PTSD, for whom these reminders cause painful and detrimental flashbacks to their experience of the trauma.
Bailey agreed that it is important to acknowledge the challenges that students with mental health problems may face in class, but went on to ask if trigger warnings are the best way to handle those challenges.
“The more delicate an issue is, I think that requires real sensitivity and acknowledgement that people might have very strong feelings about it, and respect for those feelings,” Bailey said.
He added that an alternative to using trigger warnings may be to acknowledge that the topic is difficult but provide a context for it that explains why the subject is important and worth discussion. The space for respectful discussion is then created without sacrificing freedom of opinion.
Another alternative is for students and professors to individually discuss the problem ahead of time, whether to find a substitute topic for the student to consider or to give the student time to prepare themselves to engage with the distressing subject. In some cases, trigger warnings may be beneficial to a class. Although coming to terms with the traumatic experience is an important part of recovering from PTSD, sudden exposure to reminders of the trauma could lead to flashbacks. According to Boddie, such an experience could be uncomfortable should it occur in the middle of a class, as the student may feel obliged to recount their past trauma to their classmates to explain the flashback. It may be best for these difficult memories to be dealt with in a counselor’s office, at least at first.
Anne Lewinson, associate professor of anthropology, said that she warns students in advance of distressing content so that they can prepare to discuss it. The focus then stays on the subject matter at hand rather than the students’ immediate emotional response, and possibly allows students to engage in the topic when they otherwise may have found it emotionally difficult.
“I don’t think that means that folks then get to opt out of those conversations,” Lewinson said. “The purpose is to make sure that we can have the conversations.”
Whether in favor of trigger warnings or not, a common theme was that preserving intellectual freedom and the right to discussion is vital. Acknowledging the needs of students with mental illness is important, but challenging students to discuss subjects that simply make them uncomfortable may not be a bad thing. Rather than making trigger warnings mandatory or forbidding them outright, perhaps college institutions ought to leave the decision up to the faculty and the students they teach.