Last week, we learned that the University of Chicago community would no longer be providing trigger warnings for students. If you have followed the events of the last several years, you know that students at a smattering of campuses were reportedly requesting trigger warnings in advance of the presentation of controversial class material, speeches, etc. that might cause upset in some students.
Critics of the trigger warnings blamed the students for being cupcakes who have been trophied, self-esteemed and coddled to the point that they can’t tolerate even the most minor discomfort. The academic community wondered how we will be able to do what we do – teach and research things that may be offensive or questionable to some groups of people.
It was one of those circular situations that gets blown up by the media and then people latch onto it by saying “Hey, me too!” It then becomes bigger and then gets more blown up by the media. The media fed it and then it grew. Pretty soon after, administrators at some schools started bowing to it. It was politically correct to provide trigger warnings and it makes a political statement to say you aren’t going to provide them.
I think this falls under the category of making a mountain out of a molehill.
I’ve been providing trigger warnings for students (and professionals in off-campus trainings) for years but I just didn’t know what they were called. I’m sure that many of the faculty at the University of Chicago have been doing the same and will likely continue, in spite of what the university administration puts in a letter.
I can remember “content warnings” from my own undergraduate days. Dr. Wickersham warned us the first day of what was then called BIO 341 (The Biology of Sex) that we would be seeing graphic content as he started posting pictures of penises on the very large screens in the Forum Building – on the first day of class. Talk about uncomfortable. After a few days of that, we became somewhat desensitized and were able to see beyond our discomfort and hopefully learn.
Similarly, the kid that threw up in the aisle in Health Ed 303 when we saw the childbirth movie didn’t realize the brevity of the trigger warning that the instructor gave all of us. One kid even fainted.
I hate to break it to you but a trigger warning in most settings is just a common courtesy.
For most faculty members, it’s a head’s up. “I’m about to show a video or discuss a sensitive topic that may be upsetting to some. If you feel the need to step out of the room feel free to do so. “
I liken it to the content warning that we see before the movie starts. Graphic language. Violence. Nudity. In other words, if you are going to sit through the movie you just paid to see, be prepared for the following features.
It has worked for me for years. No complaints. No drama. If the student feels uncomfortable, they leave and come back in. Sometimes, they will follow up with an appointment later to chat about the awkwardness which gives us another teachable moment.
It only became a thing when the media – and maybe a few cupcakes – made it a thing.
Conversely, I have also had students approach me about things that might bother them in advance of the situation. In those situations, I was more than happy to help. One example was a student veteran who just returned from a tour of the Middle East. He discreetly approached me after the first class and said he was still feeling on edge and would likely be sitting in the back row for the class and would I mind keeping the door open?
Making that accommodation didn’t cost me a thing or compromise my values at all.
I’ve provided trainings on campus and military bases with both civilian and military personnel on how to accommodate people with disabilities into their programs and services. I can tell you that almost 100 percent of the time when I have talked about post-traumatic stress disorder there has been someone in the group who reacted, slipped out the door or who approached me after to say “that brought up some stuff.” By starting off the program with a statement about graphic content and that it might be uncomfortable, we open the door for good discussion.
University missions are built around hearing and seeing and talking about things that might be in conflict with what we have heard or seen or talked about in the past.
Penn State has been pretty good about allowing for alternate viewpoints and for supporting the expression of controversial information. We haven’t seen the protests and the cancellation of speakers whose viewpoints make people nervous. If you don’t believe me, walk past Willard Building on most days. The Willard Preacher as he’s known is often out there spewing ultra-conservative Christian rhetoric while students walk by or stop to listen (or stop to argue). His predecessor, Bro Cope as we called him when I was a student, was famous for calling the student passers-by whores and whore mongers. No trigger warnings. We laughed our heads off. More importantly, if you didn’t want to hear it, there are several alternative doors to enter the building.
The University of Chicago is making a statement in attempt to swing the pendulum back to common sense on university campuses. Good for them. On the other hand, there will still be faculty members who will support learning in the classroom by providing the head’s up and working with students who feel uncomfortable. It’s not that big of a deal.
