The idea of "trigger warnings" lends credence that people are so weak minded that hearing something "offensive" will cause them injury. The notion is fairly ridiculous outside of a few truly traumatized individuals who should be seeking professional help to integrate back into society.
So I haven't returned to this thread since posting this morning, so Strick, in particular, has helpfully supplemented my point. In a way your second bit is right -- while I offer such warnings to everybody in a class, I am thinking in particular of the one or two "truly traumatized individuals" that might be sitting in the classroom. And the rest of the students, I'm sure, appreciate such warnings.
Trigger Warning: Gatsby gets shot in the end.
Trigeer Warning: Ahab stabs a fish and drowns
Trigger Warning: Okonkwo kills a kid
Trigger Warning: The fat kid dies in Lord of the Flies
I've never put a "trigger warning" as such in my syllabus, but on the first day I will emphasize, for instance that we'll be reading and discussing some pretty heavy shit.
In the spring, I offered students a brief content warning for
The Bell Jar and
Slaughterhouse Five. And as it turns out (#anecdotes), in a single class of twenty-three freshman, one student's sister had attempted suicide earlier that year, another had been contemplating it herself, and a third had a brother fighting in Afghanistan. One of those three left the classroom crying once during discussion. All three specifically noted their appreciation for the heads-up. And nobody dropped the course to protect their intellectual safe space.
This Spring, I will certainly offer similar warnings for
Lolita and
Titus Andronicus, for instance. It's a "Banned Books" course, so pretty much all of the texts are pretty fucked up. In fact, it strikes me now the irony of conservatives decrying "safe spaces" while simultaneously enforcing community and educational bans on the very controversial texts I'll be teaching.
ultimately, it's the profs job to establish the proper atmosphere and parameters for useful discussions in the classroom
when questions arise, it's the prof's job to resolve them
I very much agree with this. This is why "trigger warnings" should never be mandated.
Is your view that a trigger warning is only required for "graphic violent, sexual, or profane material"?
Sure, but I'd add depictions of suicide and war trauma to your list.
I don't know that I would use the term "trigger warnings", but certainly it would be appropriate to mention before class that the following material will be graphic and feel free to excuse yourself if needed. I don't think this sort of thing would require a "trigger warning" in the syllabus, but that is just me.
it really just sound like you don't like the phrase "trigger warning"
Could be. Just sounds like people walking around not wanting to see anything that might offend their sensibilities.
I am to old to see that and not laugh. I am trying, though.
Good catch, ITC. For some reason, conservatives get caught up in the (admittedly) PC terminology for this things. I don't think very many would object to a courtesy warning about heavy content. Nor do I think anybody but Keeper would argue against spaces on campus dedicated to LGBT students, for instance. It's that the definition of these terms have on one hand been exaggerated and confused, and on the other conflated into a general PC bullshitty thing.
I doubt there are very many members faculty anywhere that would argue that students should be "protected" from hearing opposing viewpoints.
there are situations that you cannot precisely anticipate
1. highly unusual student quirks
2. things that student's might say in a discussion that other student's object to
Agreed again. But higher ed teachers, in general, would very much encourage students to challenge each other and to argue productively. Much like the internet, if somebody says something that is genuinely objectionable, they are probably being a dick on purpose to incite a response or make some ill-conceived point. There are plenty of respectful ways to engage in dialogue when two sides are in disagreement. I totally agree with you that some -- perhaps many -- students are overly sensitive, but there is a very big difference between the kind of discomfort that comes with having an intellectual disagreement and someone being intentionally inflammatory.
It's the anecdotes I hear of professors giving trigger warnings before discussing topics that should be commonplace in an educational setting--images of the confederate flag is a recent anecdote I heard--that are troubling. (And, by the way, I'm not an educator, but I have public and private universities among my clients, so I'm not that far removed from the classrooms, and I have no doubt that the anecdotes are accurate.)
Honestly, this is bullshit. Perhaps it happened somewhere, once. But I don't know a single University teacher that would hesitate to post something provocative like that. As long as you do it with some kind of end-game in mind, that kind of thing is precisely how you encourage productive conversation.
Really, all this controversy stems simply from a fundamental misunderstanding of what goes on inside the college classroom. Higher education is not at all about indoctrination or even about giving students some standardized base of knowledge (especially in humanities disciplines, wherein I imagine this debate is centered), but rather about teaching students to think for themselves and challenge critically the things they experience in the world.
