3 ms·

> it's no longer the case that adults can avoid discussing any topic that might upset the fragile minority. Isn't that the point of a warning? You're still goi

by Imnimo 5y ago

> it's no longer the case that adults can avoid discussing any topic that might upset the fragile minority. Isn't that the point of a warning? You're still going to discuss it, just with a warning up front. If you were going to avoid discussing it, you wouldn't need a warning.

rsj_hn 5y ago
So perhaps there is a misunderstanding here, but I think the point is that the warnings don't actually work, so if there really is something relevant that needs to be said, I'm not sure what the value add is of having the warnings. It's not like these are dirty jokes, where common sense says that those things don't need to be included in the lecture. What we are talking about (supposedly) is content that is necessary to be in the lecture. It's necessary for the students to learn it. So do the trigger warnings help or not? A good example here -- since this often comes up in the context of Universities -- is rape, and specifically rape law[1]. You have a situation where university professors are afraid of covering rape law because it might terrify their law students[2]. From the New Yorker article written by Harvard Law Professor Jeannie Suk Gersen: "Student organizations representing women’s interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic. These organizations also ask criminal-law teachers to warn their classes that the rape-law unit might “trigger” traumatic memories. Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress." So when talking about this issue of "being sensitive" it matters a great deal whether the request is a reasonable one to remove unnecessary material or whether the request is unreasonable. It's not just a question of being considerate without taking into account the reasonableness of the request. Now there is nothing wrong with being upset at things -- I don't like the sight of blood. But I would never try to be a surgeon, nor would I complain in medical school that the sight of blood traumatized me. Someone with a fear of heights can't go to Pilot school. If I went to medical school, it would be my responsibility to know what I was getting into, just as someone going to law school is responsible for knowing what they are getting into. Otherwise, don't enroll. This reminds me of the beautiful Rumpole novels by Sir John Mortimer, where the main character is employed as a defense attorney but all his partners are bothered by so many criminals visiting their offices. I mean, there is a line between "please don't joke about polish people" to "please don't mention rape in this law school", and the pro-trigger-warning movement has crossed this line. They cannot reasonably expect to be shielded from these topics in lectures, this material will be on the tests and they need to learn it, and the secondary backup attempt of giving them "trigger warnings" to psychologically prepare them for the trauma has been shown to not work. [1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/12/17/harvard-law-professor-says-requests-trigger-warnings-limit-education-about-rape-law https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/12/17/harvard-law-p... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-ra...
- Imnimo 5y ago
  Critically, a trigger warning is specifically NOT "please don't mention rape in this law school". If you weren't going to mention it, you wouldn't have a warning, would you? Even if it's true that trigger warnings do not help people who go on to read the material, and even if it's true that reading the material is generally a good way to manage one's PTSD, I still think the students should be able to make their own informed decision about what they want to do. If they would rather avoid upsetting material, that's a decision they should be able to make. The only one they might be hurting is themselves.
- taurath 5y ago
  I'll be honest, most of your arguments are well thought out and written, but to me the target feels like, and I mean no disrespect, a strawman. I think you're conjuring, via a few cultural critics, the idea of a great mass "pro-trigger-warning movement" which either doesn't exist as a movement, or if it exists has a more reasonable and empathetic argument than you're making it out to have. OF COURSE someone who wants to be a surgeon shouldn't be if they can't handle the sight of blood. Nobody is arguing otherwise. To use Jeannie Suk Gerson's conclusion as a stand-in for your argument: > Instead, though, many students and teachers appear to be absorbing a cultural signal that real and challenging discussion of sexual misconduct is too risky to undertake—and that the risk is of a traumatic injury analogous to sexual assault itself That is one (relatively qualified) person's opinion, and I don't think she polled the students and teachers regarding the subject before writing this. I would remind that she is a professor of law, not of psychology. She may be misunderstanding the situation. She certainly writes extremely often about the problem despite being a law professor. At best, its a hearsay criticism and take it as you will.

by Imnimo 5y ago

rsj_hn 5y ago

So perhaps there is a misunderstanding here, but I think the point is that the warnings don't actually work, so if there really is something relevant that needs to be said, I'm not sure what the value add is of having the warnings. It's not like these are dirty jokes, where common sense says that those things don't need to be included in the lecture. What we are talking about (supposedly) is content that is necessary to be in the lecture. It's necessary for the students to learn it. So do the trigger warnings help or not? A good example here -- since this often comes up in the context of Universities -- is rape, and specifically rape law[1]. You have a situation where university professors are afraid of covering rape law because it might terrify their law students[2]. From the New Yorker article written by Harvard Law Professor Jeannie Suk Gersen: "Student organizations representing women’s interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic. These organizations also ask criminal-law teachers to warn their classes that the rape-law unit might “trigger” traumatic memories. Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress." So when talking about this issue of "being sensitive" it matters a great deal whether the request is a reasonable one to remove unnecessary material or whether the request is unreasonable. It's not just a question of being considerate without taking into account the reasonableness of the request. Now there is nothing wrong with being upset at things -- I don't like the sight of blood. But I would never try to be a surgeon, nor would I complain in medical school that the sight of blood traumatized me. Someone with a fear of heights can't go to Pilot school. If I went to medical school, it would be my responsibility to know what I was getting into, just as someone going to law school is responsible for knowing what they are getting into. Otherwise, don't enroll. This reminds me of the beautiful Rumpole novels by Sir John Mortimer, where the main character is employed as a defense attorney but all his partners are bothered by so many criminals visiting their offices. I mean, there is a line between "please don't joke about polish people" to "please don't mention rape in this law school", and the pro-trigger-warning movement has crossed this line. They cannot reasonably expect to be shielded from these topics in lectures, this material will be on the tests and they need to learn it, and the secondary backup attempt of giving them "trigger warnings" to psychologically prepare them for the trauma has been shown to not work. [1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/12/17/harvard-law-professor-says-requests-trigger-warnings-limit-education-about-rape-law https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/12/17/harvard-law-p... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-ra...

Imnimo 5y ago
Critically, a trigger warning is specifically NOT "please don't mention rape in this law school". If you weren't going to mention it, you wouldn't have a warning, would you? Even if it's true that trigger warnings do not help people who go on to read the material, and even if it's true that reading the material is generally a good way to manage one's PTSD, I still think the students should be able to make their own informed decision about what they want to do. If they would rather avoid upsetting material, that's a decision they should be able to make. The only one they might be hurting is themselves.
taurath 5y ago
I'll be honest, most of your arguments are well thought out and written, but to me the target feels like, and I mean no disrespect, a strawman. I think you're conjuring, via a few cultural critics, the idea of a great mass "pro-trigger-warning movement" which either doesn't exist as a movement, or if it exists has a more reasonable and empathetic argument than you're making it out to have. OF COURSE someone who wants to be a surgeon shouldn't be if they can't handle the sight of blood. Nobody is arguing otherwise. To use Jeannie Suk Gerson's conclusion as a stand-in for your argument: > Instead, though, many students and teachers appear to be absorbing a cultural signal that real and challenging discussion of sexual misconduct is too risky to undertake—and that the risk is of a traumatic injury analogous to sexual assault itself That is one (relatively qualified) person's opinion, and I don't think she polled the students and teachers regarding the subject before writing this. I would remind that she is a professor of law, not of psychology. She may be misunderstanding the situation. She certainly writes extremely often about the problem despite being a law professor. At best, its a hearsay criticism and take it as you will.