Maddy Carroll
Layout Editor
In a higher learning environment, it can be expected that sometimes disturbing or graphic topics may be covered. The world can be an ugly place, and it would only make sense to be exposed to these things in order to expand our knowledge of the world we live in. While acknowledging that fact, I think it is of the utmost importance that we recognize our fellow students who have personally experienced a trauma of one kind or another.
What I am referring to are content warnings, also called trigger warnings, in classrooms. A content warning is basically a heads-up about topics covered in class that may contain traumatic material. The purpose of these warnings is to prevent people from being in a situation that may cause panic attacks or trigger PTSD flashbacks. This would, in turn, make coming to class more manageable for those that need them.
I have noticed a considerable amount of flack towards them, from students and professors alike, and it confuses me every time. I’ve also noticed it is usually coming from someone that does not in fact need content warnings themselves. So, why are people vehemently opposed to these warnings?
One argument I’ve heard is that it censors classroom discussion and what people are allowed to talk about, and thus takes away from other student’s education. This is actually not the case at all. People who ask for content warnings are asking for just that: a warning about potentially harmful content that may be covered. Daily life can be a struggle to navigate with the added weight of a trauma. If going to class can be made more bearable by knowing ahead of time that topics like sexual assault or race-related violence will be talked about it class, I fail to see how that censors conversation or inhibits other students learning.
Another reason I’ve heard against using content warnings is that people who have experienced a trauma should be exposed to it in order to learn how to cope. All I have to say to this is that if someone has not personally experienced a trauma, and if they do not personally know what it feels like to have flashbacks or panic attacks due to a traumatizing experience, they probably shouldn’t be telling those that have how to deal with it.
Finally, another argument: if the real world doesn’t have trigger warnings, classrooms shouldn’t either. This is half true. I would argue that the real world does sometimes contain content warnings; movie ratings and explicit content warnings in both television and music are examples. More often than not, however, people will find the world to be full of things that unpredictably re-traumatize them. Classrooms are slightly more controlled environments than the real world. If something as simple as putting “Topics X, Y and Z will be covered in class” into the syllabus would make coming to class easier for someone, it is beyond me why someone wouldn’t.
Content warnings in classrooms make education more accessible for people who have experienced a trauma. It does not deem someone “overly sensitive” that they need a heads up about topics covered in class that directly relate to a trauma they’ve experienced. Having compassion for people that need these will only foster a more beneficial learning environment for those that may otherwise struggle.