3 ms·
On the one hand it increased sensitivity to people who have dealt with trauma is admirable. On the other hand college should be a place to grapple with all kind
by a_c_s 11y ago
On the one hand it increased sensitivity to people who have dealt with trauma is admirable. On the other hand college should be a place to grapple with all kinds of ideas and to learn how to deal with vastly different experiences and points of view (including those that are offensive).
Once we add a trigger warning, where do we go from there? It is one thing if the expectation is for the student to use the warning as an opportunity to brace themselves for the challenge and, if necessary, seek help in dealing with the material.
However, I think the fear of many who are skeptical of the warnings is that they would result in students being excused entirely from having to deal with any material that might trigger them. Over time this would actually diminish students' ability to deal with challenging material, which is the opposite of what students should be learning.
This already happens in lower-stakes contexts. For example, a friend of mine is a religious studies professor: he has religious students ask to be excused from learning about secular approaches, like the biblical documentary hypothesis, on the basis that it challenges their beliefs. His response, as it should be, is that being able to understand and apply something they don't believe in or even vehemently disagree with is part of what you are supposed to be learning.
- darkmighty 11y agoI believe the "lower-stakes contexts" you mention are qualitatively different. Rape, Violence, or War are related to traumatic experiences. You might not find it so controversial if it they were visceral descriptions of Arachnophobia, Acrophobia or fear of drowning. Religion or Politics, on the other hand, are related to controversial ideas. Discussing controversial ideas should never be shielded: at best it leads to enlightenment and new points of view and opinions; at worse it is a waste of time (perhaps because some ideas are poorly fundamented). So for example, the visceral passages in those books might have been safely replaced by an explanation of the results (for the students who find it traumatic only) without much loss. Of course, ideally one would separate himself from the situation and not be affected, instead focusing on understanding objectively the social and historical context for the book, or maybe the prose, and so on; but it's completely understandable some may find those experiences too traumatic.
- a_c_s 11y agoYes, that is indeed a distinction that can be made, but in practice I don't think it is - which is my fear. Quoting from the article: "However, the student said her professor focused on the beauty of the language and the splendor of the imagery when lecturing on the text. As a result, the student completely disengaged from the class discussion as a means of self-preservation. She did not feel safe in the class." For this student, it seems like they aren't able to disengage from the triggering sections or treat the discussion as an academic exercise. Even with the replacement of visceral passages (an accommodation I think is quite reasonable for those students who need it), it seems like this student would still not be able to see anything but the rape. This is certainly understandable, but being able to break something and examine it with different lenses is a key part of studying texts and an important life skill.