A Traumatized Reader Discusses Trigger Warnings

There is a time and a place for everything. The biggest problem I personally have with trigger warnings is how often they are used in academia. If you’re at a university pursuing a degree, you should expect to be challenged in many ways, and working with emotionally charged content is one of those ways, as in the following:

1. Human sexuality classes will include discussions of less typical sexual behavior that not everyone will engage in or support.

2. Abnormal child development / child psychopathology classes will include discussions of all sorts of abuse and neglect.

3. Medical courses and practicums will involve exposure to injuries and illnesses.

I really don’t understand how someone could go into higher education and expect to be wrapped up and protected from the VERY CONTENT WHICH THEY ARE PAYING TO BE EXPOSED. It’s just baffling, but it seems to be the place where these “trigger warning” conflicts seem to come up the most often.

“I really don’t understand how someone could go into higher education and expect to be wrapped up and protected from the VERY CONTENT WHICH THEY ARE PAYING TO BE EXPOSED.”

What’s amazing is that, in the US, the big increase in college enrollment began after World War 2 with the GI Bill. So here were colleges flooded with men who had been shot at, wounded, seen their fellow soldiers killed, killed enemy soldiers themselves, walked into the aftermath of Nazi death camps, been prisoners of war, etc. And so on with Korean War and Vietnam vets as well.

And somehow they didn’t need trigger warnings, but moderns do. Or say they do.

These concepts are not commonly practiced at a proverbial 99% of colleges or universities, most places still rely on personal judgment and relative “common sense.” Meaning, for example, before discussing the holocaust an instructor would note that the images they will see could be upsetting. People on this site should stop exaggerating.

” I simply do not respect the idea that someone who has gone through a hardship or trauma should be treated as forever ruined and incapable of overcoming obstacles.”
This, exactly, is the problem. If you keep treating someone as a victim, that’s all they can ever be. People who experience trauma may certainly need support, but surely it’s more helpful to assume that they will eventually get better, and not reinforce for them the idea that because something bad happened to them, they are never, never going to be okay again. It’s not just insulting, it’s crippling.

As far as trigger warnings, beyond a generalized, MPAA rating style notification of commonly disturbing subject matter, triggers are almost always so unpredictable that there’s no way to guess what should have a warning. After my father died, for the next year or so, the song “Brown Eyed Girl” would send me into a fit of tears. Even I don’t know why, but my brain had somehow made that association. For everyone else, it’s just a catchy song. Who would put a warning there?

James, it’s true that a lot of the men of that era didn’t get as much help as they needed, and suffered for it.

It’s also true that the university system didn’t come crashing down due to mass panic on the part of the hundreds of thousands of men who returned from combat and enrolled in college and studied history, psychology, and classic literature (among other things that might now be considered “triggering”) without being given trigger warnings.

So the point stands — by and large, they coped without the warnings.

I don’t think that trigger warnings are *necessarily* catering to the idea that people are “forever ruined and incapable of overcoming obstacles.” I think that, properly, implemented, they can be a nice way to show sensitivity to others. For example, if I invited the letter writer and her husband to a party, I’d want to mention there will be a crowded space there. This is not an assumption that her husband is fragile; it’s part of an honest desire to make sure my guests are comfortable. After all, isn’t it nice to spare people unnecessary discomfort?

I realize, however, that any courtesy can be absurdly extended, and trigger warnings are no different. Maybe the solution is for trigger warnings to be voluntary; as Randy said upthread, there is a time and place.

Older generations definitely had PTSD and stuff, they just didn’t know how to treat it back then. My great-grandmother’s first marriage was to a WWI vet who had a very severe case and committed suicide a few months after the wedding. My great-grandfather was also a vet and also suffered, but was able to live a normal life until WWII when the Nazis cut it short. My grandmother, his daughter, survived the Holocaust and she came to America and built a wonderful American-dream life after having lost everyone and everything in Europe. She has a few triggers for sure. Tattoos are deeply distressing to her because she has a number in her arm. She gets upset whenever she sees someone with a tattoo. But, well, if you leave the house, you’re gonna bump into people with ink sometimes, there’s no trigger warning for that. She does just fine. She lives her life, gives speeches, is very active in the field of Holocaust education, and while seeing a tattoo may raise her blood pressure, she does not faint or fall apart from it.

USA network is delaying the airing of an episode of Mr. Robot, apparently, because it has elements too close to the recent on-air shootings in Virginia. After 9-11, Sony withdrew the trailer for Spider-Man because it featured an image of the World Trade Center towers covered in webbing.

After the Vietnam war ended, a lot of veterans had trouble re-integrating with American society. “Troubled Vietnam vet” was trope all over popular media. This was not surprising… their war was not popular, and so neither were they. We just wanted to forget we’d ever heard of a place called “Vietnam”, much less fought a war there. Fast-forward a couple of decades, to the start of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. This time, Americans were united behind their soldiers. Some opposed the wars (some quite bitterly) but all agreed that it was not the soldiers’ fault that we were at war. The blame (if blame was due) belonged to the politicians who made the decision to go to war. So… this time, the returning veterans received the honor that was due them for standing up to fight when called upon? Hell no, we cut funding and imposed new restrictions on them. This was a scandal across both political parties, partisans, not something that “the other guys” did. By the time the wars wound down, they were unpopular, and we went back to trying to pretend we never sent any soldiers off to war.

“[We have] A belief that this generation of young people is so easily bruised, physically and emotionally, we must anticipate their destruction at every turn and do everything possible to spare them.”

The best phrasing describing this trend that I have seen to date.

“…the idea that someone who has gone through a hardship or trauma should be treated as forever ruined and incapable of overcoming obstacles.”

The best summary of those who adhere to the “perpetual victim” theory; this idea or belief is at the heart of some “victims’ advocacy” groups. They do as much, if not more, harm to the former victims than the original trauma did.

Obviously for a recovering alcoholic, it is best to avoid environments where there is lots of alcohol such as nightclubs and bars. BUT that’s entirely on him! He could not expect people to abstain from drinking alcohol in restaurants just because he’s present nor for that liquor store across the street from where he lives to close just because he’s tempted by it. You’ve got to learn how to deal with those temptations that you are not able to eliminate!

Ok people, I have a question here. How do you respond to people who believe in the evils of microaggressions and trigger warnings?? For example, if I’m engaged in a very nice conversation with a person of the Asian race and who speaks with an obvious accent and as we’re conversing, I ask him, “Say, where are you originally from?” just because I am interested in his background and culture? I would certainly not consider that an invasive question as I have been asked that many times myself in my frequent visits to foreign countries which I then reply, “Oh I’m from the United States”.

BUT then all of a sudden, I get a stiff and patronizing reprimand by a person overhearing our conversation telling me, “You know, that’s a very rude and personal question to ask”. The person could be somebody I know or a perfect stranger overhearing our conversation.

So my question is, how do you respond to a reprimand like that? Do you say, “It’s none of your business” or maybe “You’re being ridiculous”! ?

Basically how do you respond to clowns like that?!!

John, as the mom to 2 Asian daughters, I cringe when I hear that question. It is intrusive. I have a friend with a baby and she has been asked by strangers if the baby was delivered vaginally or cesarean.

Trust me, it is intrusive.

“Yes, indeed, the system of not giving ‘trigger warnings’ worked out just fine for the folks who didn’t need them. Whatever happened to the ones who did?”

I’m not sure anyone needs trigger warnings, a mostly bureaucratic creation of recent vintage and not a naturally occurring phenomenon.

In fact, if the studies cited by Lenore showing the desirability of desensitization are accurate, trigger warnings may be positively harmful.

“I think that, properly, implemented, they can be a nice way to show sensitivity to others. For example, if I invited the letter writer and her husband to a party, I’d want to mention there will be a crowded space there. This is not an assumption that her husband is fragile; it’s part of an honest desire to make sure my guests are comfortable. After all, isn’t it nice to spare people unnecessary discomfort?”

Actually, if it were me, it would make me extremely uncomfortable that you are even concerning yourself with my mental health at all. It shows that you view me as some damaged person that needs special treatment. It would be the EXACT reason I would be hesitant to say anything to anyone if I had a trauma in my life – the idea that I am now to be treated differently. This specific example also implies that you think I am a total idiot.

In other words, simply invite me to a party. It is likely not the first ever party for me. I do understand that they often involve crowded spaces. I am capable of deciding on my own whether I can handle parties. I am also perfectly capable of asking questions about any issues concerning the party that may impact my decision – inside v outside, how many people invited, etc.

Maybe I should demand trigger warnings for all mention of potatoes.

After all, my great-great-grandmother only survived the Irish potato famine by emigrating to the US as a 13-year-old indentured servant.

I think I’ll faint dead away the next time I’m asked if I want fries with that.

Sukiemom – It is certainly improper to ask someone where they are from based solely on their race, however, I think you missed the part of John’s example where he said “who speaks with an obvious accent.” If you are insulted to have someone pick up on the different accent and ask where you are originally from, you are EXTREMELY oversensitive.

Having lived in Georgia for much of my life, I have somewhat of a southern accent. It isn’t super strong due to not being a native southerner and living in a town with a diverse population, but it is easily identifiable to those outside the south. Anytime I leave the south, I get asked where I am from. It certainly gets tedious to answer it repeatedly, but that is not the individual askers fault.

I am a college professor and I have had students with trauma come to me to discuss their triggers when they have been presented in class. I am also an adult with PTSD. From both perspectives I have to say that this issue is not as black and white as people want to make it.

There is nothing wrong with showing courtesy and warning people when something potentially difficult is coming their way. No one can learn when they are reliving trauma in your classroom.

I personally hate it when a friend posts an article on FB, for example, with a comment like, “This is a must read!” and then when I click the link I am blindsided by my trauma being triggered. A little warning would be nice so I can be the one to decide what I’m exposed to when.

The issue here isn’t really about whether we should be giving warnings or not. The issue is about where the responsibility lies. Is it on the individual to say this is too much for me right now I need some space and understanding? Or is it on everyone else to never mention anything?

We can’t possibly know what will trigger everyone or exactly on which occasion the exposure will cause a problem versus when it won’t so banning entire subjects, or words, isn’t practical or helpful.

But saying something like, “hey, next week we’re going to be covering overdose deaths in class,” as a warning so an individual can make an informed, in the moment, decision about their own well being isn’t unreasonable.

When a student came to me and said, “I am a recovering herion addict and I can’t write the paper on The Basketball Diaries because trying to watch it is triggering me and I really don’t want to relapse” I told him/her to stop watching it and not to write the paper. I told him/her to write a paper on his/her recovery and the things s/he does everyday to keep him/herself sober. I gave full credit for that assignment.

At the same time, I taught the material to everyone else with no incident.

There’s too much “there’s only one way” in the discussion of trigger warnings without any attention to the subtleties of individual settings, situations, and circumstances.

Also, I want to add, that as a white, anglo-saxon Athiest, born and raised in California, I have been asked hundreds of times where I or my family is from. What I find more offensive is the staggering ignorance people have regarding the differences between nationality, culture, ethnicity, and race.

My nationality is “American”. Culturally, I identify as Irish and Italian American even though ethnically my family comes from most of Western Europe, some of Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa.

While a few people might be interested in your nationality, I find that most people are actually interested in your ethnicity. And as a genealogist, I find ethnicity seriously fascinating. I also don’t think that a few ignorant or racist people shouldn’t bar everyone from learning about someone’s ethnic background.

The Nocebo Effect and Trigger Warnings

http://www.antidepressant-dangers-non-medical-alternative.eftisland.com/html/nocebo.html

There’s a phenomenon called the Nocebo effect that shows up throughout life, and this effect is essentially The Power of Suggestion. If you hear about how other people behaved in a given situation, you are much more likely to respond the same way. It happens all the time in the field of medicine. A doctor tells you about “possible” side effects, and you then experience some or all of them. It is not unusual for people who get cancer to die, not from the cancer, but from their belief that cancer is a death sentence.

In one nocebo study, asthmatics who were exposed to saline solution but were told they were inhaling irritants developed full-blown attacks that were relieved by the same saline solution presented therapeutically.

Think about that – These people with asthma only “thought” they were being exposed to allergens. Their “thoughts” – not the substance – caused their asthma attacks.

Dan Ariely, in his book: “Predictably Irrational,” tells of an experiment in which people were given a choice between two kinds of beer being offered free of charge. One had a small amount of balsamic vinegar blended in, and the other did not. If the subjects were told about the vinegar “before” they tasted the offerings, even though they did taste both before choosing what they wanted, MOST chose the beer without the vinegar. BUT, if they tasted both beers and were NOT told about the vinegar, most chose the one WITH the vinegar.

So, what was happening was essentially a trigger warning.

As Dan says: “If you tell people up front that something MIGHT be distasteful, the odds are good that they will end up agreeing with you.”

“I’m not sure anyone needs trigger warnings, a mostly bureaucratic creation of recent vintage and not a naturally occurring phenomenon.”

The name is new, the phenomenon is not. They’ve been used in broadcast television for the entire history of broadcast television. They were known as “viewer advisories” and later as just “ratings”.

“Maybe I should demand trigger warnings for all mention of potatoes.
After all, my great-great-grandmother only survived the Irish potato famine by emigrating to the US as a 13-year-old indentured servant.
I think I’ll faint dead away the next time I’m asked if I want fries with that.”

Good news! McDonald’s now offers apple slices and yogurt as options in Happy Meals.

“The name is new, the phenomenon is not. They’ve been used in broadcast television for the entire history of broadcast television. They were known as ‘viewer advisories’ and later as just ‘ratings’.”

Not sure what you’re calling advisories, but ratings like TV-Y7 only go back to 1997, far from the entire history of broadcast television.

I really can’t imagine viewers of “Gunsmoke” in the 1960s were being warned that OMG there might be GUNS in this TV show OMG OMG!

“personally hate it when a friend posts an article on FB, for example, with a comment like, “This is a must read!” and then when I click the link I am blindsided by my trauma being triggered. A little warning would be nice so I can be the one to decide what I’m exposed to when”

Everyone on your friends list knows your exact trigger and should be cognizant of it with every FB post? Maybe YOU should be the one not clicking on random links. I know I’m sounding harsh, but this sounds like you are expecting the world to conform to you, instead of vice versa.

“No, but when the news came on, and the guns weren’t pretend any more, and the dead bodies weren’t pretend any more, you got viewer advisories.”

What did these consist of? Describe them. I was watching news well before 1997 and don’t know what you’re talking about.

Oops. “May not be appropriate for children”.

“The newsreader talking head turns to the camera and says some variation of ‘the following video may be disturbing for some viewers. If you do not wish to see these images, turn away now.’
Sometimes it would be phrased as ‘may not be suitable for all viewers’, or ‘may not be available for children'”.

I really don’t remember those.

“You didn’t watch the link I provided in my last comment, did you?”

Yeah, I did. As I recall, that was considered pretty extraordinary at the time, and much derided as being overwrought anyway. And they could hardly preface individual news stories with that sort of warning – the news would consist of little else.

“You’re still way more recent than the beginning of broadcast television — right after WW2, I believe, at least regularly.”

Yeah. Because although they were giving these sorts of warnings (they were common in Vietnam War coverage, but also with some of the more violent demonostrations) nobody had VCRs to record them and save them yet.

“In the classes I’ve taken the “trigger warnings” come attached to the most asinine places, namely the stuff that has to do directly with the CLASS TOPIC- sex, war, death, etc.”

In second-semester Constitutional Law, there is a whole class lecture that covers how the Constitution was found to permit people to engage in the sorts of sex acts they find appropriate, (mostly) without the government being able to criminalize it. Amusingly, this topic also came up on the day of the “off-site” class meeting, which is held in a public place rather than in the lecture rooms at the law school.

In first-semester Con Law, the topic of torture came up several times, because the Supreme Court was, at that time, deciding some important cases on the detention and treatment of “enemy combatants”.

Obviously, both are covered under the umbrella of “Constitutional Law”, but neither is essential to an understanding of it. Either or both might have justified a “trigger warning”. Two semesters of Con Law are required of every student attending an ABA-approved law school. And attendance at an ABA-approved law school is required by nearly every state for issuance of a law license and admission to the bar.

“You shouldn’t be warned and let out of the material because suddenly you’re being faced with it.”
“Warned” and “let out of the material” are two hugely different things.

On accents — my kids sometimes get asked where they’re from.

They’re white American kids who still live in the city they were born in. I think they might have a slightly odd speech pattern because I sort of adopted one because I didn’t care much for the regional/ethnic accent I grew up with, my husband came from a different regional background, and they were all homeschooled through middle school, which in their case meant they learned a lot of words (through reading) before they heard many other people say them.

Asking a person with a different speech pattern where they’re from is showing interest in the person. Asking a person in America in the 21st century where they’re from because of how they look isn’t, IMO, so much racist (I can’t see how it implies animus in itself), as ridiculously ignorant of the fact that we live in a very diverse society.

We emcourage people to bond to their trauma, and in some cases people will seek a trauma to bond to. I have an acquaintance who very early in our relationship told me she had breast cancer. Poor woman I thought. Turns out she had had a benign lump removed. The cancer survivor identity was attractive it seems.

Commonplace small talk questions like “where are you from?”, “where did you go to school?”, and “what do you do for a living?” are considered rude and intrusive in many cultures and societies when asked by a stranger.

If someone tells you that, then you could thank them for enlightening you so you won’t make that mistake in the future.

But, if you think that being sensitive to others’ feelings and cultural differences is going to result in America becoming a nation of wimps, then just continue to assume that you – and you alone – set the standards for acceptable behavior.

The problem with trigger warnings in higher education instruction is not the advisory part (though it can become bloated, quickly), but the almost certain chilling effect it produces.

Giving a “heads up” or inserting a line on a syllabus on content that would normally be disturbing to mainstream society isn’t a serious hurdle on itself. The real problem is the creation of a general expectation of having all sorts of upsetting or ‘triggering’ scenarios, events, themes, elements that could possible exist be accounted for and previously announced.

Sukiemom,

I don’t know if it’s because I work in the service industry so I come into contact with thousands of people a year or because I have a “Roman” nose, or both. But yeah, at least once a month, if not more, it comes up in conversation. For me, though, because I love different cultures and ethnicities due to my interest in genealogy, I don’t mind too much. That, and I figure that if you ask me that question, then I’m allowed to ask it right back.

I do agree that it is not a permissible question with someone you just met or don’t even know. Mostly because you just don’t know who you are talking to and it could be a sensitive subject. There are a few people where I live that I’m guessing (by their accent) that they’re from Africa somewhere. But I won’t ask them because I worry that they might answer with “Sudan” or “Ghana” or one of the other numerous countries currently going through civil wars.

I do understand your frustration though, about people’s ignorance. While it’s not nearly the same thing, I always get the “so who has the red hair? You or their father?” (both my kids are gingers). I usually just answer “their dad”, because it’s true. But what I really want to do is school them in the basics of genetics. My daughter, on the other hand, always has people who feel it’s okay to touch her hair without asking. There was a period there, for about a year, that she would actually flinch if someone moved suddenly in her direction, she was so tired of people touching her.

“The issue is about where the responsibility lies.”

Exactly. In my opinion the responsibility lies 100% at the feet of the people who have an issue to seek out information that will help them manage their own triggers and not on the rest of the population to make up random warnings that may or may not apply to the group that you are addressing. That absolutely doesn’t meant that you have to watch Basketball Diaries if it will trigger you. It means that you look at the syllabus, see that you are going to watch Basketball Diaries and research whether it might trigger you. It took me a grand total of 5 seconds to google Basketball Diaries and read the first sentence on Wikipedia to know that it is about a heroin addiction.

“I personally hate it when a friend posts an article on FB, for example, with a comment like, “This is a must read!” and then when I click the link I am blindsided by my trauma being triggered. A little warning would be nice so I can be the one to decide what I’m exposed to when.”

So all your friends are supposed to keep track of your triggers AND think about them regularly so that they can address them before posting anything on their own personal Facebook page? Wow, you expect a lot from your friends.

” It means that you look at the syllabus, see that you are going to watch Basketball Diaries and research whether it might trigger you. It took me a grand total of 5 seconds to google Basketball Diaries and read the first sentence on Wikipedia to know that it is about a heroin addiction.”

So, if the line on the syllabus after “Date X – Film, The Basketball Diaries” is “This film is about heroin addiction”, you are somehow diminished?

“So, if the line on the syllabus after “Date X — Film, The Basketball Diaries” is “This film is about heroin addiction”, you are somehow diminished?”

YES, if that means that a major plot point has been SPOILED for me before the author/director intended it to be known. If the title of the movie was “Heroin Diaries” then the author/director wanted that known from the beginning. Otherwise, I would rather enjoy the book/movie as the creator intended, letting the plot unfold, surprises and all. The point is that art is supposed to recreate the experiences of life (where there are no advanced warnings for what is to come) and the unpredictability is part of the enjoyment. If it’s an assignment for a class, then obviously I’ll have to complete the assignment, but the experience of the piece can absolutely be ruined by knowing too much in advance.

There’s a HUGE difference between the generic warnings (like on the news) “viewer discretion advised” which can let someone know they should look into it further before watching if they’re concerned versus a specific trigger warning: “this contains graphic descriptions of rape” or “this is about heroin addiction” or anything else specific that can SPOIL the material for the 99.99% who don’t need trigger warnings.

If someone is so fragile as to need trigger warnings, then they should be 100% responsible for doing the research themselves and not expect books, movies, lecture material to be labeled with specific trigger warnings. In the internet age, this isn’t even a huge burden for them to be responsible for themselves and find the information they need themselves.

“YES, if that means that a major plot point has been SPOILED for me before the author/director intended it to be known.”

Rosebud was a sled. The ship hits an iceberg and sinks. She’s really a dude. He was dead the whole time. Leia’s his sister. Rocky loses, but wins in the second one, then loses again AND wins again in the third one. The Nazis lose (in everything except Triumph of the Will). Romeo and Juliet die. So do Butch and Sundance, Bonny and Clyde, and Thelma and Louise.

If you didn’t want it spoiled, you should have gone to see it in theaters when it came out, or rented it before it showed up as a class assignment.

James, you’re an asshole.

I really wish this site had a filter so readers could hide certain people’s posts and not even have to look at them. I know I can scroll past them all, but when a certain someone responds to every single post anyone ever writes, it gets tedious to scroll past dozens and dozens of pointless stupid posts in order to read everyone else’s comments.

Everyone discovers movies and books for themselves for the first time, even if it was originally written over 100 years ago or produced 50 years ago. And having taken many English classes, they don’t give away the end before students have read the material. Students read, and then discuss afterwards. To say “you should have read/seen it when it first came out” when that might have been years before the person was born just shows what a total moron you are.

PS. To Kill a Mockingbird was pretty good. You might want to see it.

SPOILER ALERT:
Gregory Peck won an Oscar for it.

“I believe the interpretation is “where are you from” implies “because you don’t belong here.” White folks don’t interpret it that way because we don’t get the “you don’t belong here” message as often, so we aren’t attuned to it. YMMV.”

That’s quite possible. But it boils down to the asked person misinterpreting an innocent question due to bad past experiences.
How can we get over this without asking such questions, and without giving the asked persons positive experiences that someone may just be genuinely curious without negative implications? Avoiding asking about one’s heritage only serves to reinforces negative beliefs, IMHO.

One might also return the question and ask the white person where he or she comes from. After all, all the white people in the USA are immigrants or descendents of immigrants themselves.

Syllabus anyone? There has always been a syllabus, hasn’t there?

Isn’t the syllabus a “fair warning”/

Is this about semantics?

Of course not! It isn’t about “trigger warnings” at all. It’s about the silly mess we have got ourselves in the past several decades running away from reality. And protecting our sweet babies (throughout their lives) from the truth about the human condition.

I first noticed this about the time my son was in middle school. We lived in a “nice” suburb, with “great schools”. But my son broke down and cried one day talking about going to the town’s high school, which was rated one of the best in the country.

That’s when it hit me: they are putting kids in boxes lined with the softest downy feathers. Boxes they couldn’t escape from easily. Looking back, this seemed a subtle means to iife long parental control of ever-more helpless kids.

I was a vocational counselor, working in poverty programs, so I knew a “good job” when I saw one. I agreed with my son’s assessment that grooming all the kids for Harvard, Cornell and MIT was not the way to go. Especially since Harvard and most other universities had lately turned their backs on the Liberal Arts, and had become glorious vocational schools, where parents could send their kids for Engineering and Big Business, with a guarantee down the line that the kid would be self-sufficient, and help their parents in their old age.

My son went to the high school of his choice. Which cost me every cent of the money I had saved for his college education. Because I believed him when he said, “If I have to to go to B______n High School, I won’t make it to college.”

He did so well in the private HS that he got into a prestigious Liberal Arts College, called Bard, where the students didn’t need “trigger warnings”, because they were all free range kids who had trained their parents to leave them alone to learn, as mine trained me. And they understood how to read a syllabus.

The letter in the heading is about truth and reality and maturity. If we think about it, we probably all know someone like the writer and her husband. My father earned a purple heart in the Second World War, and never told anyone a word about it. WWII Vets suffered PTS, I am sure of it looking back now.I was in a boarding school at age three and didn’t see any family for months on end because we were quarantined with one childhood illness after another–during the war. My father came home, and healed. I was reunited with my family, and survived additional periods of “traumatic abandonment”, as well.

Treatment was non-existent then. I am deeply grateful it is available now. That more is needed is certainty.

So what we have is–

“Get over it! Get help if you need it. Call 211. Whatever it takes. ”

Let them write what they please on the syllabus. It’s their call. It is partly to avoid lawsuits, don’t you think?

And while we’re at, how about putting more “dangerous” liberal arts courses into the school curriculum at every level? So they can take some risks in a secure setting. And they can actually handle college when they get there. Sweet babies, that they are.

Anybody who would be offended by that question and me taking an interest in their roots and culture would be super sensitive! Goodness, it’s not as if I’d run up to them on the street and ask them, “Hey, where you from?” Perspective people! No different is the fact that I was born and raised in Wisconsin but I’m currently living in Alabama. Many times people ask me where I’m from because of my accent. So I proudly tell them that I’m a born and bred cheesehead and a Packer backer to boot! My roots are something I’m very proud of and I don’t believe it’s any different if you were born and raised in another country that has its own unique history and culture. The offense at a “Where are you from?” question would seem to imply that the person is ashamed of their birth country and roots, a bigoted viewpoint within itself.

So my question is, how do you respond to clowns like that when they start patronizing you over that simple question?

John, I assume you are referring to yourself as a clown which saves me the trouble. If you had bothered to read my posts, you would see that it is OFFENSIVE to approach my teenaged Asian daughter and ask her where she is from. She speaks perfect English and it is none of your f-ing business where she is from. She is an American and to ask her where she is from insinuates that she is not American and, subtly, that she does not belong here, as James Pollock notes.
If you can’t see why this particular situation is different from you as a Cheesehead then all I can say is that you have lived a very sheltered life because it is INSULTING to go up to a person who is non-white and ask them where they are from. As another reader said, to understand that something is insulting to someone from another culture and then to keep doing it because you are an American and they just have to “get over it” is the mark of a boorish person.

And I am anything but someone looking for microaggressions. I am, however, someone raised in the South and taught good manners. Someone I hope you pick up in your current home.

Sukie,

Get therapy. You are way over the top. Unless it is overtly racist, there is no problem.

@Sukiemom………{{{ Sigh }}}, No, you need to go back and read MY post. I’m not talking about approaching your Asian teenage daughter who speaks perfect English and asking her where she’s from nor am I talking about “go(ing) up to a person who is non-white and ask(ing) them where they are from”. This should have been very clear from what I posted. I’ve already explained what I meant and I’m not gonna explain it again because obviously YOU can’t comprehend it.

And YOU are among the clowns I’m referring to which also should have been obvious from my posts!

Sukie,

For all you know the people asking are just trying to make conversation, maybe wondering since they have never met before, that the person is from one town over, another state or wherever.

This is not their issue. It is your insecurities coming to the surface.

@Sukiemom – whoops, just reread that and must apologize, that came across as harsh when it was meant to be on the funny side. Been around my husband too long, probably. ..!

Any feeble attempts at humour aside, being a teen is hard, and your daughters would likely be insulted by something, regardless of their circumstances….if allowed to be. My wee one gets sick of being asked if Mum knows she’s out….my baby gets annoyed by being expected by others to be the one ‘in charge ‘ of her big sister. I just tell them to suck it up and get over it. It will likely happen until they’re adults and maybe beyond.

Your daughters are adopted. …that’s a happy fact of life. They will likely face questions about their adoptions from genuinely interested folk for at least as long as they live at home with you. I suggest you tell them not to worry about it either.

Which brings me to what I actually meant earlier about the American comment. …some Americans do sometimes seem to raise their kids a bit softer than other groups. My Asian husband would tear strip off the kids for worrying about something like being asked where they’re from – he would just tell them to ask the question back. Like Ken Tanaka does brilliantly in ‘What Kind of Asian Are You?’ on YouTube…..no idea how to link it.

@Alex: Give it time. Remember, this bubble wrap mentality never exited before. Or it was very, very minimum just 25 years ago and earlier. Most people had always had a “free range” mentality. But because someone, somewhere started to become overly protective. Used the internet to spread unsubstantiated opinions, it spread to another, then another, and so on. Until we see what society is today.

It may only be a very small percentage of schools right now, but if this isn’t addressed, you will see that more and more schools will follow.

I think recognising that somthing may be a trigger to somone is a good thing. Providing a suitable method for dealing with somone inadvertently triggered is a important thing to do, and should be done in Co operation with that person. i think somthing brief in a campus induction along the lines of some people may react strongly to things that are relevant to their past, if you need to leave a room in such a circumstance do so! It will not reflect badly on you… If you have any worries please speak in confidence to A your lecturer or B
Is a sensible response to this.

Prehaps warning people before anything particularly graphic (we were warned before being shown some safety videos that show real fatal accidents in graphic detail ) is a good idea

Trying to absolutely remove the chance of triggering anyone by changing your course content is not the right thing to do, neither is peppering everything with so many warnings that important ones get lost in the noise

I suspect that part of what happens with this topic is that the phrase “trigger warning” conjures up a whole body of issues, particularly for those who get angry about them. I don’t have a huge problem with “this has a rape scene.” I do have a problem with letting law students not study rape law, but simple warnings seem fine to me – although if science tells us they are counterproductive, that might be a good reason not to use them.

However, there’s a whole body of connected issues that come up. (In other words, as a professor, I feel triggered when trigger warnings are discussed.) There’s two main issues:
1. The power differential that has developed, whereby any student, at any time, can claim to be offended and set off an investigation of a professor.
2. The spread of trigger warnings from setting off PTSD sufferers to “you’re Jewish and this is about Anne Frank” and so on.

What these two things have in common is that they aren’t about protecting anyone, they’re about silencing certain forms of speech. When correcting grammar is a micro-aggression, and we are not allowed to say “I believe the most qualified applicant should get the job” or “melting pot” we’ve gone beyond protecting PTSD sufferers to a stifling of dissent. Mostly, by the way, the students do this to themselves, going crazy when a movie is being shown or a speaker comes to campus. The school gets dragged along.

Actually, a fairly good small-scale model is listening to the commentary on old WWF pay-per-views. The bad guy commentator will point out that the good guy is cheating, or praise the bad guy for doing something smart, and the good guy commentator will respond “you’re a real moron” or “will you stop it?” or “what is wrong with you?” Look how effective it was – in those days, everyone loved the good guys and hated the bad guys. Hulk Hogan, in addition to being a ridiculous jingoistic patriot, was a rulebreaker – he gouged eyes, scratched backs, attacked people with weapons, pulled people out of the ring after being eliminated at the Royal Rumble – and when Ventura called him on it, Ventura was portrayed as an idiot. (Even worse was Hacksaw Jim Duggan, whose entire character seemed to be that of a severely mentally disabled jingoist.)

Anyway, you should know that we’re not supposed to call them trigger warnings. The following is from Everyday Feminism, and is in earnest:

“Editors Note: Like this phenomenal article, Everyday Feminism definitely believes in giving people a heads up about material that might provoke our reader’s trauma. However, we use the phrase ‘content warning’ instead of ‘trigger warning,’ as the word ‘trigger’ relies on and evokes violent weaponry imagery. This could be re-traumatizing for folks who have suffered military, police, and other forms of violence. So, while warnings are so necessary and the points in this article are right on, we strongly encourage the term ‘content warning’ instead of ‘trigger warning.'”

“Remember, this bubble wrap mentality never exited before. Or it was very, very minimum just 25 years ago and earlier”

It’s not new. In the first three-quarters of the 19th century, the (American) people who wanted challenge and opportunity went west, and the people who wanted to play it safe stayed on the east coast. Heck, for past 250 years, the people who wanted challenge and opportunity came to America, and the ones who wanted safety stayed home (with some intermissions for giant multinational wars, of course.)

There have been overprotective parents for, well, as long as there’s been parents.

I had a jar of peanut butter that had a warning that peanut butter contains peanuts. Well thank God I didn’t have peanut allergies because I’ve been eating a PB&J for years without being reminded the P in PB&J stands for freaking peanuts! Thank God for that trigger warning! [sarcasm for those who need a sarcasm warning]

And PS: I only experience “microaggression” when trying to type on those tiny tabs on my smartphone because those freaking tabs are so microscopic!

@James Pollock “Heck, for past 250 years, the people who wanted challenge and opportunity came to America, and the ones who wanted safety stayed home (with some intermissions for giant multinational wars, of course.)”

The idea of Europe as a place of safety for past 250 years is not really historical. It is not only world wars, even French revolution falls into that period – one of the most bloodiest revolutions ever. While Europe is war free land now, it did not used to be. Plus, a lot of people went to America in order to escape religious (puritans) or political oppression at home. America had more opportunities then fixed European caste/feudal system, but Europe was hardly “safe” by any meaningful definition of “safe”.

“Someone might intend it that way,but the logic of “where are you from” in no way implies “because you don’t belong here” nor is it remotely reasonable to conclude that most people mean it that way.”

Must be nice to live in a world of certainty.
just because you didn’t consciously intend something doesn’t mean it isn’t there, just that you aren’t conscious of it.

You’ve been told “when you ask this question, this is the message you send, possibly unintentionally” The choice of responses is “wow. I didn’t know it made you feel that way. I’ll keep that in mind for later” and “no, that’s not how you feel. You can’t feel that.”

For the record, I’ve never intended it to be interpreted that way, either… but now that I know that it is, it may prompt changes is what I do going forward..

Clarification: Law students passing classes whose content includes rape law without learning rape law. By PhD I assume you mean SJD; I wouldn’t expect a PhD for non-lawyers to focus on law and lawyering.

” Even if criminal law is not required to graduate from a specific law school, you still need to know something about it as it is on the multi-state portion of the bar exam in every state.”

There’s at least one state that doesn’t require a bar exam for all candidates for a law license, and 50% of the people who hold JD degrees work in a job that doesn’t require a law license.

“So, if the line on the syllabus after “Date X — Film, The Basketball Diaries” is “This film is about heroin addiction”, you are somehow diminished?”

As a student, yes, if I would prefer not to know this beforehand. I can avoid knowing most spoilers by simply not seeking them out. Ignoring the syllabus is not the best course of action if I actually would like to pass the class.

As a professor, it is extra effort, however slight, that is simply not my responsibility. I have absolutely no problem with providing another assignment to a student who comes to me with an issue such as this. However, this is also probably going to be a once or twice in a career problem as college campuses are not teaming with recovering heroin addicts. Why should I warn every class, every year – thus spoiling the movie for a large number of students who know nothing about it – for the one former heroin addict every ten years who enrolls in my class?

“Ignoring the syllabus is not the best course of action if I actually would like to pass the class.”

Literally millions of students disprove this theory. Maybe 10% pay any attention to the syllabus beyond “when are the exams”, yet nearly all of them pass.

Just wildly hazarding a guess here that James will not be able to cite any studies that back up his assertion…….

Lenore, i’m glad you are also adding this issue to Free Range. I guess the bottom line for me is the trifecta of empowered conversation including when people are having mental health challenges, listening for where others are and not just being a constant babble, and recognising that many of us have triggers and some social messaging can reinforce bad behaviour around anger triggers such as police officer assault and murders, but also how authorities are dealing with free range kids and families.

A lot of the disagreement in the comments seems to predominantly revolve around person A trying to establish a general rule that person B does not agree with. The problem I see is that we do not interact with each other as groups but as individuals. If, for example, you do not feel that asking someone the root of their accent is offensive, ask but be prepared to accept whatever reaction you get just with every interaction. If the person you asked is offended, then they are free to express this and expect that their offense be honored by person A. This seems natural and leaves nothing for anyone except the two individuals involved to argue about or make general rules they think others should follow. The same seems to apply for trigger warnings. If you have a problem, tell the offending party and y’all work it out. If you think some subject may be alarming to some and you feel the need to announce it in general (ie. viewer discretion is advised) or specifically (this word uses the n-word a lot) , then do it. Send simple to me.

“Spending that much $ on a law degree. All what $?”

*Someone* spent all that money, even if it wasn’t *you*. Law school isn’t free, so I didn’t have to make any assumptions to know that a law degree is expensive. If you had no intention on actually being a lawyer, but remained in the same position you worked before law school, then SHAME on you for taking scholarship money that someone else could have used to actually become a lawyer and actually further their career just so you could inflate your ego.

Not to mention that “time is money” and you might not have paid cash out of your own pocket, but you spent another form of currency in the time you spent going to school.

@James Pollock Your definition of “safety” and “danger” is quite far from what those words usually mean. Are you really implying it is possible to be “psychologically safe” while being physically unsafe? The concept of psychological safety is a product of extremely safe world we live in now. People in physical danger care about that primary and move around a lot to avoid it.

Old mass immigrations happened due to famines, revolutions, old school oppression and such. There is no “psychological safety” during either of those and good times immigration rates are much smaller. Changing life and moving elsewhere is not easy comfortable option and can be very lonely if you go alone, but it is far from being “psychologically unsafe” especially when your home situation is deadly. For that matter, many immigrants came together lessening the “unknown language and culture” problem to great degree. Which does not mean they did no faced great difficulties – they did. However, so did those at home and psychologically unsafe moving away was often out of hope for safer life.

Majority of immigrants to states came from Europe and majority of Americans are still white. Unless we are talking about very recent immigration, it makes perfect sense to focus on Western Europe rather then Asia or Africa or even Eastern Europe.

Okay, bad example. How about this: I have a problem with students passing a class without learning the content of that class, because some portion of that content is deemed triggering.

“Literally millions of students disprove this theory. Maybe 10% pay any attention to the syllabus beyond “when are the exams”, yet nearly all of them pass.”

Although it is clear that you are doing what you usually do and making stuff up just to say something, today when college students are babied like grade schoolers that may very well be true. When I was in college reading the syllabus was the only way to know what books to acquire and what the assignments were. Professors didn’t hold your hand through a class and say “okay class tomorrow we will be discussing the Civil War so read pages 100-140.” They expected you to keep up with your assignments yourself.

“I have a problem with students passing a class without learning the content of that class, because some portion of that content is deemed triggering.”

People pass classes without learning a portion of the content of that class all the time. No class requires 100% correct answers to pass. Most don’t even require 100% attendance. I have passing grades on my undergrad transcript for classes that I never actually attended except to take tests.

If you sign up for a rape law class, you obviously should not be able to then opt out of all the assignments because they are triggering and still pass the class. If you sign up for a criminal law class that happens to discuss rape law for a day or two, there is no inherent difference in ditching that particular day for any reason whether it is triggers or a hang over from the party the night before. It may affect either person’s grade if rape law is covered on the final, but it is unlikely to be fatal.

“Literally millions of students disprove this theory. Maybe 10% pay any attention to the syllabus beyond “when are the exams”, yet nearly all of them pass.”

” I have passing grades on my undergrad transcript for classes that I never actually attended except to take tests.”

So… it sounds like you are one of the millions.

I don’t require attendance (even though my employers continually urge me to institute an attendance policy.) You can pass my class, with an A, without coming – if you read the syllabus, and do your own research to learn the material I teach that does not come from the textbook (the syllabus shows you the topics, but rather broadly, so I guess you’ll need to learn the entirety of the material I just touched on, if you intend to be prepared for the exam.) However, suppose you don’t learn, say, linear regression, and don’t answer the questions on linear regression – then try to tell me that you didn’t answer them because the example I used on the exam was ‘triggering.’ Take your complaint to the dean, and you might well get away with it. That’s what I’m against. (My final exam has 4 questions.)

Or suppose you say M&Ms are triggering, and I use M&Ms in my discussions about probability, so you don’t come while probability is being taught, then can’t do the probability questions, or anything depending on them, on the final – I’d say 3 out of the 4 questions depend on this material.

You fail to learn some specific piece of information, sure, you can do fine. I’m talking about integral class components. Keep in mind that, in a math class, things are pretty tied together.

Huh? Your last comment to me made absolutely no sense whatsoever. That said, I am not arguing at all. Just responding to comments directed at me by you.

“if syllabi are so unimportant that millions of students get through college without even reading them, why exactly do you support putting trigger warnings on them?”

Mistake #1: That trigger warnings belong on syllabi (as opposed to other means of distributing information).

“Nobody who needs them is going to read them anyway because syllabi are simply worthless pieces of paper”

Mistake #2: Conflating two groups of people who, very likely, do not overlap. Millions of people can, and do, largely ignore syllabi. The much, much smaller group of people who need trigger warnings is not so fortunate; they actually have to pay attention to what’s in the class.

” It seems kinda obtuse to argue both that trigger warnings are necessary on syllabi AND that syllabi are unimportant and largely unread.”
Agreed. Which is why I didn’t do that. Looking forward to yet another time when you complain about how wrong I am, and then largely say the same thing I already said.

“I agree that asking people *without an accent* where they are from (as opposed to their ancestors) is just weird”

In the US (and not only in the US) people have regional accents.

Asking “where are you from?” might mean “what part of the US are you from?” even though your folks may have been here since Colonial times.

Uhm, BL, even in my tiny country people have regional accents. Regional languages, too. That’s what you get when most people have lived in their region for generations, especially in countries that also have a standard (/official) language.

But a regional accent is still an accent 🙂

Recently we were talking about the trend on campus to require “trigger warnings” — warnings on material assigned for class that could potentially traumatize a student by triggering a flashback on some misery endured.