BuzzFeed: Trigger Warnings
This morning I learned a new term (for me): trigger warnings. According to Buzzfeed, this phrase evolved
from clinical psychiatry, but now it is appear in some college syllabi—cautions,
in other words, that some content in a course could possibly trigger a reaction
of some sort in individuals who have previously experienced unpleasant or
traumatic events. The clear suggestion
in the article I read is that instructors and/or programs, depending on who
controls the course content, could be held liable for negative experiences of
students should class content trigger a negative response. The dateline being California, I initially
thought this is just a “California thing,” but evidently not, which re-affirmed
the correctness of my decision to have bailed from teaching.
How does one possibly teach college-level English—writing,
reading, criticism—with material intended to “go against the grain,” as our
theorists write, if we’re expected to disclose the “against the grain”
components in advance? Now, that’s not
saying that I’m not sensitive to individuals’ needs: I always took into account my students and
their communities as I selected material, especially their moral
sensibilities. When I taught high school,
I provided disclaimers and alternatives when I taught a controversial book. I have had students thank me for that. I wouldn’t do that in college, though,
because we should be working at theoretical and critical levels that move us
beyond narrative. And with some material,
we need to respect the author’s evoking pathos
(the emotional) as well as logos (the
rational).
Sadly, I don’t think attorneys understand that, and this
sort of decision making smacks of yet another legal intrusion into academia: “Cover rears—insert trigger warnings
throughout course to avoid helicopter parents and possible legal action.” Admittedly, I’ve never experienced a life-altering
trauma that would trigger, for example, an anxiety attack or PTSD. I have, however, been exposed to materials in
school that triggered a strong response in me.
I dealt with them on my own as they occurred and did not expect any
special consideration, however. I
stepped outside the class during the showing of a film that recounted trials
similar to those my dad experienced in his final days, and, though I respect
Joan Didion’s writing immensely, I used only selected passages with my
students, because her “year of magical thinking” reminded me too much of my own
after my mother died. The point is that I
made my own decision and acted on it.
Some might say, yes, but these are students who feel
intimidated. True, but, in the long run,
who is the “trigger warnings” provision as currently proposed really helping? Not the students, I would argue, if the result
is an unrealistic, sanitized environment where they can avoid anything
troubling. I remember when my oldest
nephew was a toddler. A family acquaintance
appeared one day with a bag full of tools to “child proof” the house—covers for
electrical outlets, locks for cabinets and stove knobs, etc., etc. My simple question was, “So, who is going to ‘child
proof’ his world, or, in the short term, Gram’s house?” How, in other words, would he learn realistic
safety boundaries that would allow him to navigate the real world?
Wouldn’t the individuals who experience triggers be better
served by having a path to cope rather than an escape? I think back to the brilliant move by my
Senior English teacher when she discovered that at our Catholic academy Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Flies, among several books,
were banned with the statement that reading them constituted a MORTAL sin. She went against the grain by requiring the
books and challenging us to do two things:
1) determine why her colleagues had banned them, and 2) establish
criteria that set literature apart from objectionable reading. We then were assigned to compare our list to
well-respected secular and religious literary critics. My take-away from that lesson was not only
tools to apply in the future but the confidence that our instructor trusted us
to take responsibility and make sound decisions.
College Wrestling with Trigger Warnings
Trusting the individual to take responsibility is what needs
to happen with this warnings debate, I think.
Rather than making the instructor the responsible party to somehow
anticipate all the things in a course that might trigger traumatic responses
with students he/she has yet to meet, I suggest a blanket statement in the
syllabus of students’ responsibilities and rights regarding controversial
material, a statement which invites communication with the instructor and suggests
alternative pathways to engagement. Give
the student true control, in other words, and tools now that can be used in the
future.
