The Expansion of Trigger Warnings and its Detriment to Higher Education Cody Roane

Introduction

Trigger warnings became prevalent in the academic scope around 2010 when they left the confines of the blogosphere and made their way towards college campuses and universities nationwide and around the globe. More and more professors were feeling the urge to place trigger warnings atop class syllabi and assignments that might be deemed insensitive to students who have suffered traumas in their personal lives. The prevalence of trigger warnings has raised the issue of class autonomy and the operations of universities as a whole. There needs to be research into the bigger picture that trigger warnings cover and how a trickle down affect has been created. This larger scope encompasses the idea of “safe spaces,” the ideology of microaggressions and the idea that trigger warnings are a form of and lead to censorship across academia. This is important to me because knowledge and education are important aspects to the advancement of society. The more ideas society is exposed to, the easier it becomes to solve problems facing the world. The questions that are raised are thus: are trigger warnings useful, who defines a trigger, have trigger warning been abused and do trigger warnings lead to censorship?

The History

Trigger warnings were initially created in internet blog forums, most popular being feminist blogs regarding sexual abuse cases. In this early form, the trigger warnings were doing what they were intended: preparing most of the audience of the blogs of possibly sensitive content. “Initially, trigger warnings were used in self-help and feminist forums to help readers who might have post traumatic stress disorder to avoid graphic content that might cause painful memories, flashbacks, or panic attacks. Some websites, like Bodies Under Siege, a self-injury support message board, developed systems of adding abbreviated topic tags—from SI (self injury) to ED (eating disorders)—to particularly explicit posts” (Jarvie, 2014). As stated in Susannah Breslin’s 2010 blog post on True/Slant, the use of these trigger warnings grew and it became taboo for posts to merit the trigger warning label. With the continual growth of social media and the internet, these trigger warnings began to expand towards content outside of the blogosphere. According to Jarvie, people, television shows and publications have been suggested to be followed with a trigger warning.

Trigger warnings made their way to university campuses through Bailey Loverin, a student at UC Santa Barbara who watched a video for class that depicted a rape scene. Loverin had previously been physically abused by a prior boyfriend and the depiction of the rape scene seemed to trigger emotions that come from the memories (Wilson, 2015). This was in 2014. She later proposed an idea alongside the UCSB student government association for her school to have a resolution passed that all professors should include trigger warnings for all possibly triggering material. This is where one gets their first glimpse at trying to define a trigger warning. The resolution proposes that triggers be defined as such: “The current suggested list of Trigger Warnings includes Rape, Sexual Assault, Abuse, Self-Injurious Behavior, Suicide, Graphic Violence, Pornography, Kidnapping, and Graphic Depictions of Gore” (Calderon, Wakefield, 2014).

By listing what defines a trigger warning, the resolution is finally giving a formal written definition of content in need of a trigger warning. The resolution later lists that future topics that could be deemed triggering can be voted upon and passed by the school legislature. The resolution goes on to say that triggers are not limited to sexual assault and violence, creating the notion that these are topics seen as more capable of triggering individuals than others. The resolution continues to go on to explain that trigger warnings are to be used “for content not covered by the rating system used by the MPAA or TV warnings” (Calderon, Wakefield, 2014). The resolution was later passed by the UCSB student government association but has yet to be adopted as a university wide sanction. Trigger warnings have since found their way into higher education, affecting the classroom think space.

The Use

Advocates for the use of trigger warnings cite the simple nature that trigger warnings impose. These advocates see trigger warnings as a means to allow those affected by trauma an ease of access to the material. Loverin wrote a Times op-ed piece regarding the state of trigger warnings and their intended use: “Supporters contend that they allow survivors the chance to prepare to face the material, adding new perspectives. Without a trigger warning, a survivor might black out, become hysterical or feel forced to leave the room. This effectively stops their learning process…these warnings are less about protection and more about preparation” (Loverin, 2014). Loverin goes on to articulate that trigger warnings “doesn’t ban the content or excuse students from learning it. Even when the resolution proposed by her and her fellow students at UCSB states that “Having a trigger warning on a syllabus allows a student the choice to be present, gives a student advance notice of possible triggers and the choice to be present or not instead of having to leave in the middle of a class or lecture” (Calderon, Wakefield, 2014). The resolution also goes on to state that students shouldn’t be docked points for missing classes associated with possibly triggering material. Students do seem to have the option to leave class and disassociate themselves with the material altogether.

The opinion that trigger warnings provide an ease of access is shared by Alison Kafer, a professor of feminist studies at Southwestern University. No stranger to traumatic experiences, Kafer stands a liaison for the disabled population. A victim to an arsonist attack, Kafer is now deemed physically disabled. Her stance on the use of trigger warnings: “In this framing, the trigger warning is about making the content of the talk accessible to anyone who wants it; quite simply, it’s about accessing the material, not censoring or avoiding it” (Kafer, 2016). In context, Kafer is referring to Margaret Price’s, an associate professor of English at The Ohio State University, “warning” prior to a class discussion, which brings up the idea that students must be comfortable in order to access and learn the material. Trigger warnings are used to start and open the discussion by having those affected by traumatic material to ease themselves into the material. Unlike Loverin, Kafer is not suggesting that students have the option to avoid triggering material. She wants students to have easier access to sensitive material, access meaning that people can say within their bodies, moving comfortably within themselves to think aptly. Kafer continues to discuss the idea that spaces change, ones once deemed accessible to become inaccessible with the creation of a discussion.

Kafer uses three examples when discussing triggering event, one being a BDSM convention. While attending a reasonably safe space, certain warnings were given about sexual traumas and what these demonstrations could potentially be interpreted by the audience. However, Kafer quips that the demonstrators leave out other traumas that could be present. And a gentleman wearing a hat emblazoned with word “ARSON” was in attendance, triggering Kafer. Here, Kafer adds that she “engaged in passing,” passing being the act of “hiding” one’s anxieties and triggered state while in the presence of a general public. This brings up Kafer asking these questions: “Is sexual trauma the only trauma relevant in or to feminist and queer spaces? Or is disclosure of queer desire the only disclosure pertinent to such spaces?” She couples this with the prior statement that if the guy wearing the hat wore a different hat, she possibly wouldn’t have been triggered. She previously applauded the demonstrators for their awareness to warn of potential triggers and traumas the demonstration might impose. The presence of the “ARSON” hat, however, erases this viewpoint. Kafer puts the blame of her trigger on something unrelated to the demonstration and unawares of her internal and personalized trauma. She brings in the idea of assumptions when warning others of sensitive subjects and introduces the idea that trigger warnings are specific to the beholder. This creates the notion that trigger warnings have taken a step farther in their use and leads to the abuse of the practice (Kafer, 2016).

The American Association of University Professors has an interesting take on the use of trigger warnings:

“There are reasons, however, for concern that even voluntary use of trigger warnings included on syllabi may be counterproductive to the educational experience. Such trigger warnings conflate exceptional individual experience of trauma with the anticipation of trauma for an entire group, and assume that individuals will respond negatively to certain content…by calling attention to certain content in a given work, trigger warnings also signal an expected response to the content (e.g., dismay, distress, disapproval), and eliminate the element of surprise and spontaneity that can enrich the reading experience and provide critical insight (2014).

The Abuse

The idea that professors should provide trigger warnings influenced a survey taken online by members of the College Art Association and the Modern Language Association. Here, more than half of the respondents stated that they voluntarily used trigger warnings (Downs, 2015). Of the same survey, one-fourth or respondents stated they used trigger warnings more than once. Less than one percent had no trigger warning policy at their universities and even less stated students came to them wishing for the implementation of trigger warnings. Turnout for the survey was low, with only 800 of the more than 12,000 contacted responding. This can skew the survey and deem it “unscientific.” Although more than half admitted to using trigger warnings at least once, six out of ten suggested that they impose a negative affect on academic freedom. One instructor wrote that trigger warnings leads to the “cultivation of a posture of fear.” David Briton, an emeritus professor of communication and media arts at Marymount College suggested that the practice of the humanities and social sciences is “in the business of triggering.” Briton also suggested there was no real evidence to suggest being exposed to uncomfortable material caused any real harm (Schmidt, 2015).

In their 2015 Atlantic article, Greg Lukianoff and discuss how today’s students are coming into college campuses protected by adults from previous settings. In the 1980’s and 90’s, campuses across the country fought restrict hate speech. But this fight against hate speech blossomed into the “literary, philosophical and, historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives.” They continue to define this current generation of academia as protecting the emotional well-being of students and trying to create college campuses into large “safe spaces, where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable.” They define this as vindictive protectiveness, which is “creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse.” This couples the idea that students feel their traumas are the worst traumas. An assumption is created that an individual’s traumas are worse than others and must be taken care of in order to have a successful learning environment.

Lukianoff and Haidt further claim that vindictive protectiveness leads to emotional reasoning: “assuming that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: ‘I feel it, therefore it must be true.’” They further elaborate that the use of offensive language isn’t only subjectively wrong but also objectively wrong: “A public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong. It is a demand that the speaker apologizes or be punished by some authority for committing an offense” (Haidt, Lukianoff, 2015).

This is how David French, an attorney and staff writer at the conservative publication National Review, sees students controlling autonomy in the classroom. He brings in the argument that students try to hide behind a veil of fragility, using a “fragile psyche” to win sympathy from professors and fellow students. By doing this, they can almost guarantee that their opinion and side of the story will be adhered to and they can avoid any outside contact with opinions that differ from their own. French speaks metaphorically between student’s fragility and warfare: “their alleged fragility is simply a tool of ideological warfare, a method of building sympathy” (French, 2015). Using trigger warnings to lead class discussion is a form of pedagogy. These “fragile” students are trying to control this pedagogy and dictate what material they wish to see when abusing the use of trigger warnings. French later argues that fragile students don’t “form political movements, tote around mattresses as works of “performance art,” engage in civil disobedience… don’t file multiple lawsuits and campus complaints, seeking to bring down everyone from fellow feminists to college presidents.” These are the acts of so called “justice seekers” and inclusion activists that hide behind their veils of fragility (Haidt, Lukianoff, 2015).

The abuse of trigger warnings and their growth into something larger than their intentions has created a stir among academia. This could have been a direct result of the 2013 Departments of Justice and Education plan to broaden the definition of what sexual harassment was, including verbal language that was “unwelcome.” Universities then started adopting that standard. To define this, people are supposed to rely on their subjective attitudes towards speech and advancement. This means emotional reasoning can be used as a weapon and evidence, as stated warned by Lukianoff, Haidt and French. This emotional reasoning has led to many examples of students abusing the power of their “fragilities.”

According to a different Robin Wilson article in the Chronicle of Higher Education stated from above, Jared Roberts used a photograph depicting a female being spanked by a male in the 1950’s. This was used as a demonstration of male and female interactions during this time period and was supposedly educational. One student didn’t feel this way.

A student walked out of a class discussion on abortion at the University of Maryland. The discussion was about abortion facts. The class was sociology, the class discussion important and relatable to the class (Wilson, 2015).

Elizabeth Isemann teaches political science at Southeast Community College. She received requests from war veterans in her class to be “be sensitive to images of war and violence in lecture content.” These are topics of the class, however. Many times these requests are detrimental to the learning of the course (Wilson, 2015).

Owen L. Astrachan, a computer science professor at Duke showed a film in class where a character in the film commits suicide. A student asked that a trigger warning be used prior to showing the film. Astrachan was at first taken aback but then changed his stance in realizing the suicide wasn’t the integral part of the film. It was the character creating awareness about what’s available on the internet. Because of this, Astrachan is now beginning to anonymously poll his students at the beginning of each semester on what their specific triggers are. The problem here is the size of his classes: ninety-two students. He states that he can’t track all 92 students but will remain sensitive to what he is teaching. This brings back the fundamental problem of defining a trigger and associating differing sensitivities to varying students (Wilson, 2015).

Extended Evidence

The actual use and placement of trigger warnings prior to a piece of literature is not what’s leading to censorship. The direct abuse of trigger warnings and the idea they impose is what’s detrimental to education and free thought in the scope of higher education. As cited in the 2015 Atlantic article, many cases of students feeling threatened by an opposing viewpoint has had a negative impact on students and free thought and speech.

They cite the 1993 Water Buffalo Incident at the University of Pennsylvania. Here, a student called a group of raucous and loud group of students “water buffaloes,” referring to the Hebrew slang which represented and animal or beast. He was accused of violating the school’s racial harassment policy, even though his comments were strictly based off of a group’s actions, not ethnic background.

In 2008, at the Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, a student was found guilty of racial harassment for reading a book titled Notre Dame vs. the Klan. The book was about a student opposing the Klan at the university in 1924 but the student was still found guilty of racial harassment because some students were offended by the nature of the title of the book.

Just recently, in 2014, there was an incident at St. Thomas University over the celebration of “Hump Day,” a reason to celebrate Wednesdays made popular by the commercial depicting a talking camel waltzing through an office building. There was a demonstration set to be held on campus using camels but was canceled by the university due to backlash from students saying the use of camels could be deemed inappropriate to some cultures (Haidt, Lukianoff, 2015).

Conclusion/Call for Further Research

These incidents stem from and have their origins in trigger warnings. Students can yield their power in the classroom to curb what is taught and discussed and this has trickled down across campus and outside of the classroom setting. If students see they can get away with dictating viewpoints in the classroom setting, they feel they can dictate all discussion across campus and in the professional realm. This is where the abuse comes in.

A clear cut definition of what a trigger warning entails needs to be defined. This is a gray area, however, because what triggers some individuals may not trigger others. Who’s to say one person’s sensitivities carry more weight than others?

Qualitative research needs to be done in a larger form of the survey previously mentioned. Teachers and professors of various universities must create a survey of the use of trigger warnings and then implement them across campus, polling both students and professors. Once this data is collected, a qualitative study can then be done based on the data collected from the polls. Professors can then use various experiments to test hypothesis’ on the effectiveness of trigger warnings and if they do more harm or good for students in a learning environment.

Works Cited

Breslin, Sussanah. “Trigger Warnings Don’t Work. Here’s Why.” True/Slant. Forbes, 14 April. 2010. Blog. 29 March. 2016. Retrieved from http://trueslant.com/susannahbreslin/2010/04/14/trigger-warnings-dont-work-heres- why/

Downs, Linda. “Trigger Warnings.” College Art Association. 22 June. 2015. Web. 29 March. 2016. Retrieved from http://www.collegeart.org/news/2015/06/22/trigger-warnings/

French, David. “Trigger Warnings: Dumbing Down the Campus.” National Review. National Review Mag., 18 June. 2015. Web. 29 March. 2016.

Kafer, Alison. "Un/Safe Disclosures." Journal Of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies 10.1 (2016): 1-20. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.

Lukianoff, Greg, and Jonathan Haidt. "The Coddling Of The American Mind. (Cover Story)." Atlantic 316.2 (2015): 42-52. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.

"On Trigger Warnings." Reports and Publications. American Association of University Professors. 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.

Schmidt, Peter. "Many Instructors Embrace Trigger Warnings, Despite Their Peers' Misgivings." Chronicle Of Higher Education 61.39 (2015): 9. Education Research Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.

Wilson, Robin. "Students' Requests For Trigger Warnings Grow More Varied." Chronicle Of Higher Education 62.3 (2015): 28. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.

Wilson, Robin. "Trigger-Warning Catalyst: Bailey Loverin." Chronicle Of Higher Education 62.16 (2015): 32. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.