Trigger Warnings In Higher Education: Benefit Or Detriment

An ongoing controversy in higher education is the implementation of trigger warnings in classrooms. A trigger warning, according to Dictionary.com, is “a stated warning that the content of a text, video, etc., may upset or offend some people, especially those who have previously experienced a related trauma.” This controversy over the use of trigger warnings is illustrated by the assertions of two opposing groups of stakeholders, those who believe that these warnings positively affect the educational environments, and those who believe that trigger warnings negatively affect their education. Those who feel they positively affect their education are typically students of trauma and those who feel they negatively affect their education are students who feel they are not receiving the most out of their education. Not only do these trigger warnings affect true education they are also detrimental to academic freedom which is “freedom of a teacher to discuss or investigate any controversial, social, economic, or political problems without interference or penalty from officials, organized groups, etc.”

In "Why I'll Never Give Students 'Trigger Warnings,'" Professor Gina Barreca claims that trigger warnings are destructive to "authentic education" because they stop the flow of information, especially when the information is slightly disturbing or uncomfortable. Barreca further asserts that trigger warnings are negatively affecting not only other instructors but also students because they limit free and unfettered speech. Barreca, as a college professor at the University of Connecticut, feels personally involved in this issue. Other stakeholders include, students, administrators and other college instructors affected by these warnings. Initially, Barreca contends that trigger warnings are detrimental to "authentic education" because they "... encourage you to interrupt or suppress responses before you encounter any representation, action, idea or emotion you suspect might make you uncomfortable. She explains that these trigger warnings limit discussion that might "arouse pity, empathy, sympathy, or connection”. She also asserts that this emotional response is necessary in an educational setting. The rhetor states, "Colleges and universities must remain institutions that inflame curiosity and, by their very existence, disturb those who enter their gates".

To further clarify her position, Barreca compares trigger warnings to childhood vaccinations. She contends that, like childhood vaccinations, trigger warnings create an illusion of safety. Along with this "sterile, unproductive, and grossly contorted” environment, the author also reasons that trigger warnings lead to students who are emotionally and intellectually immature. By limiting discussions about topics that might be considered offensive or uncomfortable to a handful of students, Barreca implies that students will not grow intellectually. In describing this stunting of intellectual growth, she states "if you protect the unexplored intellectual and psychological landscapes within yourself, you end up with a wilderness".

Similarly, in "If You Need a Trigger Warning, You Need P.T.S.D. Treatment,” professor Richard J. McNally of Harvard University asserts that instead of implementing trigger warnings, schools should provide students with psychological health centers instead. Consequently, the rhetor contends that trigger warnings are unnecessary distractions in the college classroom, a burden to the free exchange of ideas. Referencing a recent letter by Jay Ellison, Dean of the University of Chicago, the rhetor notes that some colleges and universities are beginning to reject the concept trigger warnings. Applauding this decision, the rhetor contends that trigger warnings are paralyzing academic freedom because they are making them a mandatory requirement, which violates the notion of academic freedom. McNally states that trigger warnings are also detrimental to education because they provide students with a false sense of the world, dangerously insulating students against the necessary exposure to controversial and emotional topics. He also notes that advocates unfairly press professors to issue these trigger warnings before assignments to keep distressed students from being “triggered” by class content.

Drawing a distinction between trauma and more serious health issues like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the rhetor references a study that concludes that though many students are exposed to trauma, they tend to only have “...transient stress symptoms”. The author further contends that if a student is reacting violently to course content, then they should “prioritize their mental health and obtain evidence-based, cognitive-behavioral therapies that will help them overcome P.T.S.D.”. Unlike Barreca and McNally, proponents of trigger warnings argue that these measures are vital in a classroom to ease the discomfort of students when faced with provocative or psychologically disarming materials.

In “Why I Use Trigger Warnings,” assistant Professor Kate Manne of Cornell University argues that trigger warnings are not about coddling, but about “enabling everyone’s rational engagement”. Because she agrees with opponents of this practice that college classes must be intellectually and emotionally stimulating, Manne contends that trigger warnings are not used to encourage student to skip assignments or readings; instead, they allow time for struggling students to better prepare themselves for upsetting content, enabling them to better control their reactions. Manne states, “The evidence suggests that at least some of the students in any given class of mine are likely to have suffered some sort of trauma.” The author contends that people who have suffered major trauma can experience vivid reminders that make them feel the same way they did when the trauma occurred. Ultimately, she contends that these reactions lead to the student suffering severe panic attacks, marked by dizziness, nausea, and an inability to focus.

Finally, although Manne has and will continue to use trigger warnings, she does not believe that the use of trigger warnings should be mandatory for all professors. She asserts that this would violate the concept of academic freedom so essential in higher education. Trigger warnings have been a controversial issue in higher education for over a decade. With many different opinions surrounding the topic, it has been difficult to discern the true and lasting effects of trigger warnings on higher education. Barreca and McNally argue that trigger warnings are not only ineffective, but that they are damaging to the pursuit of the academic, emotional, and intellectual maturity of the affected students. Because they distract from this primary purpose of higher education, both of the aforementioned rhetors condemn the use of trigger warnings as destructive and short-sighted, insulating the students from the real world. While Manne in part agrees with Barreca and McNally that college students must indeed be confronted with topics, activities, and ideas that provoke discomfort and emotion, she contends that trigger warnings merely equip students to better prepare for this uncomfortable material. She asserts that the prevailing misconception that trigger warnings inhibit intellectual growth demonstrates the primary flaw in the arguments of the opponents of this practice.

From this cursory review of such a contentious issue, it is clear that the stakeholders involved place great importance in its resolution, The depth and breadth of these arguments indicate the fundamental disagreement of stakeholders over the use of trigger warnings to improve the academic environment of colleges and universities. Because this issue is such an important one, it is equally important to understand the varying opinions of the stakeholders involved.