by Katie Kull

Staff Writer

 Does this title intrigue you? Prompt you to read on? Or does it push you away? Students may be seeing similar cautionary precursors to material in class descriptions in universities across the nation. These are called “trigger warnings.” Essentially, they warn students of any sensitive content that will be covered in the class they are considering enrolling in. Currently, there is a large debate in higher education over whether or not these warnings should be put in class descriptions or not. This debate centers around the question of academic freedom from censorship in the classroom. Some believe trigger warnings inhibit professors’ freedom to teach material deemed sensitive because it contains anything that might initiate a negative emotional responses from students.

The idea of trigger warnings began in the blogosphere as a warning about graphic descriptions of rape on feminist sites, but has migrated to university campuses in regard to any topic that may deeply offend any student and possibly trigger post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) response. In addition to rape, some politically controversial topics like sex, race, class, and capitalism also garner possible trigger warnings. This emphasizes comfort over intellectual engagement. What started off as a good intention, to protect students from possible emotional trauma, quickly developed into something that closely resembles censorship, as some professors are encouraged to remove any sensitive material that does not directly influence the overall goal of the course.

 The two sides of the argument are easy to understand; avoid triggering PTSD reactions in victims of assault versus degrading academic integrity and decreasing the drive to learn about something outside their comfort zone in some students. Students at St. Lawrence straddle both sides of the debate.

“I think the warnings should be implemented into the course description because it is important to allow students to be prepared for what they will be learning about,” commented Masha Kolesnikova ’18, who is in favor of the standardization of trigger warnings.

Other students, like Rebecca Briggs ’17, can see the other side of the argument. “College is all about expanding your horizons and changing your mind. An ignorant mindset will close you off to new experiences. By taking a class that may be outside your comfort zone, you might be able to realize your way of thinking was flawed before.”

Both students bring up very interesting and important points. It is important for victims of assaults and crimes to be protected against material that may be emotionally difficult to get though, but there should be a better system than trigger warnings. Rather than including warnings in the class description, perhaps they should be put in the syllabus. Students who have a problem with one of the days or units in the course of the class during which a discussion about the triggering content is planned should be able to meet with the professor about that trigger warning and devise an alternate assignment. This would protect victims as well as academic integrity.

As of now, trigger warnings do not seem to be an appropriate solution to the real problem at hand; an increase in campus violence, assaults, and alcohol abuse. These warnings are just a way of displacing the problem when we should be searching for a solution. These solutions are unlikely to be found in the classroom but with appropriate administrative attention.