Point-Counterpoint: trigger warnings

'Point-Counterpoint' juxtaposes two opposing perspectives on polarizing issues and debates. In response to a recent letter published by the University of Chicago announcing its opposition to the use of “trigger warnings,” the following responses, written by the Daily's opinion section, address both sides of the debate on free speech and safe spaces in the university setting.

 

In support of trigger warnings:

In a controversial letter to the Class of 2020, the University of Chicago expressed its stance on freedom of speech on campus. The letter explains that UChicago wants to foster debate, discourse and disagreement, all important goals for an academic institution. However, the letter goes on to say, “Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

Through such a strong proclamation, UChicago is not promoting free speech; in fact, it is actually hindering it. Let’s start with trigger warnings — these aren’t directly inhibiting topics from being discussed. Instead, trigger warnings provide important advance notice for victims of trauma and grief. A recent NPR survey found that about half of the professors who responded had used trigger warnings before introducing “potentially difficult” material, and most of them did so voluntarily, not because of external requests.

Trigger warnings also do not inherently encourage students to avoid uncomfortable topics. The idea behind their use is that students will still learn from the material presented, but will also have the time to emotionally and mentally prepare themselves to be in the best mindset possible to learn and contribute to the discussion. If a university wants to welcome the perspectives of all students, it must take the steps to make all students comfortable sharing their thoughts. Trigger warnings are fundamental to this process, and abolishing them essentially silences students who are suffering from trauma and discourages their free speech. In the words of Abraham Gross of New York University’s Washington Square News, “Trigger warnings are the beginning, not the end, of academic discussion.”

Safe spaces are just as fundamental to promoting dialogue, as they give marginalized students an outlet to express their views without sacrificing their own well-being. As universities have become more diverse over the past decade, support systems such as safe spaces have evolved on campuses in order to provide for the needs of a population that comes from vastly different experiences and backgrounds. Diversity does not come for free. If schools want to enrich on-campus dialogue by including multifaceted perspectives, they must also bolster their essential mental health and wellness support services.

By issuing this strongly-worded letter upon the arrival of first-years on campus rather than in response to a specific event that undermined free speech, UChicago is underestimating its students, assuming that they aren’t interested in learning or broadening their own perspectives. And that assumption, applied to some of the most intelligent and accomplished students in the nation, is the biggest insult of all.

 

In opposition to trigger warnings:

The recent rise of trigger warnings, safe spaces and other mechanisms limiting intellectual freedom threatens discourse on college campuses. A Knight Foundation survey showed that 54 percent of students felt that campus culture restricted people from expressing their opinions for fear that they would offend other students. The University of Chicago is taking an uncomfortable but important stand in protecting the ability of all students to speak freely and preventing students from shielding themselves from difficult topics.

College is a time to learn, explore and be exposed to differing opinions and viewpoints. If trigger warnings and safe spaces are perpetuated on campus, they will be expected in the real world, where they are almost never present. Rather than coddling students by allowing them to avoid discussions they don’t want to have, schools should equip them with the tools they need to succeed and hold their own in the future.

While it is indisputably important to be tolerant of diversity and respectful toward marginalized groups, the “right” to not be offended has gone so far that it threatens innocent people. At Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis in 2008, a 58-year-old white janitor and student was found guilty of racial harassment for reading a book honoring opposition to the Ku Klux Klan simply because there was a photo of the Klan on the front cover. Similar incidents, varying in their extremity, have taken place on college campuses all over the country.

In 2013, the Department of Education’s Office on Civil Rights broadened its definition of sexual harassment from speech that is “objectively offensive” to speech that is “unwelcome.” This new, broader standard has been applied to a variety of categories other than sexual harassment, and greatly increases the risk of subjectivity dictating what can or cannot be deemed “harassment.” The spectrum of trigger warnings has thus been extended far beyond victims of PTSD after a violent incident to anything and everything a student could find objectionable. This slippery slope of regulation has led many students to feel unsafe or hold back opinions while speaking out because they are afraid that their right to free speech is not protected.

Trigger warnings haven’t been proven to help students struggling with anxiety-related disorders, either. Safe spaces prove just as ineffective, allowing students to insulate themselves from those who disagree with them. This might make things easier during college, but it will certainly be a hindrance after graduation when students expect to be exempt from anything they deem even vaguely uncomfortable.

As an academic institution, the UChicago not only has the right, but also the responsibility, to ensure that it facilitates the freedom of expression of all of its students. By excessively policing its student body and allowing students to opt out of discussions they don’t like, the school would be stifling diversity of opinion on campus. UChicago should be lauded for reinforcing its values and upholding freedom of speech, without fear, for all.