I've thought about the topic of Academic freedom and the ability to challenge students and how it's been neutered by the concept of "microagressions" and "trigg

I've thought about the topic of Academic freedom and the ability to challenge students and how it's been neutered by the concept of "microagressions" and "trigger warnings". When I was in school, we watched Schindlers's List. Not when we were young, but when it was thought we were old enough to appreciate it. Talk about a trigger warning. It's literally a graphic portrayal of one of the most terrible things people have done, but we watched it because it's important to be challenged and grow. I worry that's no longer the case. I really really hope I'm just being a typical "old person" and that I'm wrong. The other area where I fundamentally disagree with the concept of microagression and trigger warnings is that there is a popular concept that people have the right to feel a certain way. They don't. Some people suffer from "Lepidopterophobia", fear of butterflies. Their feelings are 100% real and in fact, should you be around someone suffering from Lepidopterophobia try and be considerate. However as a society we should make no attempt to remove discussion of butterflies from public places or classrooms. People suffering from Lepidopterophobia have no inherent right to keep the rest of us from enjoying butterflies. Under the ADA it might make sense to provide them with reasonable accommodations if a psychiatrist has determined they are suffering from Lepidopterophobia but that's about it. I'd implore people to try and keep some of these ideas separate in their head. There are people suffering from PTSD and I'm sure there are situations that trigger their PTSD (4th of July explosions, dimly lit jogging pathways, men) and cause them to feel some terrible mental anguish. Society is under no obligation to remove those triggers from their life. I keep saying that society is obliged to do this and not obliged to do that. I should clarify what I base this reasoning off of. When society decides to keep people safe by outlawing their murder they are saying that a certain behavior is basically never ok because it's intrinsically harmful. Second hand smoke is intrinsically harmful. Peanuts are not, though for many people they are quite harmful. When somebody avoids a certain topic that makes people feel bad there's no end to that slippery slope. If we decide that one person's internal state is sufficient reason to censor people then there is literally no such thing as free speech anymore. That's a price I'm not willing to pay for one person's comfort.