Trigger Warnings don't censor conversations-- They encourage them.

Zenni Duong
ASA 2
Section A03

Response to "How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus"
(Blog 4)

This article presents a plethora of extreme and pointedly absurd examples of students wielding "offense" as a way to censor and rob the faculty of their academic freedom. The classroom should be a space for academic discourse, which may veer into sensitive or traumatic material. However, I disagree with the article.

Although academic freedom should not be compromised, the classroom isn't an appropriate place to administer "cognitive behavioral therapy". The classroom trigger warning isn't a way of censorship, but a warning that sensitive material is expected. The trigger warning allows students to use judgement and decide how they want to proceed with the learning. In no way should the classroom assume students should "toughen up" and expose themselves to "the real world"-- the classroom has no knowledge of students' personal experiences and histories, and should not prescribe how students should be exposed. That is the job of mental healthcare professionals.

What's the Deal with Classroom Trigger Warnings? 

The video link explains that trigger warnings are a part of the bigger issue-- the dynamics among students, faculty, and administration. With increasing corporatization of universities, students are no longer just students, but as clients. That warrants a discussion bigger than trigger warnings which act as advisory warnings, not censorship.

If film rating systems are acceptable to warn viewers of explicit content, why are trigger warnings different?