Earlier this week, the University of Chicago ignited a wildfire of controversy with a welcome letter to incoming freshmen. The letter began by emphasizing the university’s core value, the “freedom of inquiry and expression,” then went on to assert that the university does not support “trigger warnings” or “safe spaces.”

Some praised the university for the letter, applauding their commitment to “freedom of speech.” Others were outraged. Those outraged argued that “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” are crucial for fostering a safe on-campus environment and protecting students’ mental health. Many also brought up the harm caused to those with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To those opposed, the university’s letter was an inconsiderate act that disregarded the struggles of thousands.

The letter does read as inconsiderate, but it brings to light a crucial problem with a misuse of “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces.” “Trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” may indeed help those suffering from PTSD. Both have a place. Still, the inclusion and overuse of either in a university setting could produce intensely negative consequences that extend far beyond infringing on freedom of speech. The problem doesn’t lie in the warnings or safe spaces themselves, but in student’s attitudes towards them. In an effort to be overly cautious, students and universities very often fail to hold important conversations about issues such as sexual assault and race, thus neglecting and tiptoeing around the same serious issues they work so hard to protect their peers from.

In a coverage of the controversy, TIME magazine cited several instances that demonstrate these adverse effects. According to TIME, students at Rutgers requested that the book "Mrs. Dalloway" be taught with a "trigger warning." Students at Brandeis attempted to shut down another student’s art installation that displayed the microaggressions she faced, maintaining that the display itself could potentially be offensive. At Harvard, one criminal law professor lamented the difficulty of teaching rape law with this overemphasis of “trigger warnings.”

Again, the problem doesn’t lie in the warnings themselves. The problem arises from an overuse of “safe space” rhetoric, which in turn pushes students away from productive discussions and crucial knowledge. In the case of the Harvard professor, the extreme advocacy of trigger warnings deprives future lawyers of the information they need to protectvictims of rape. In the case of the Brandeis installation, the extreme advocacy of trigger warnings silences the artist’s struggle with microaggressions, inadvertently brushing the actual issue aside for it to remain unaddressed. In both cases, the warnings act counterproductively. They may intend to protect students, but they lay the groundwork for more harm to occur and to continue occurring unaddressed in the future. In the case at Rutgers, the argument for the trigger warning is indeed valid; the book depicts a highly realistic picture of post- war trauma and depression, ending with the suicide of one of the main protagonists. Of course, those suffering from PTSD should not be forced to endure harmful trauma. Still, the book is immensely important for others to breach the gap of misunderstanding. The value of the book lies in its description of the post-World War I environment and real depictions of, yes, PTSD. Allowing all students to opt out of reading it dangerously undermines the purpose of the work. Worse, taking the novel out of a curriculum limits students in understanding post-war trauma and silent trauma in general. Thus, they are not able to fully learn why that "warning" exists in the first place. This mentality leads to fearing the content of the novel, instead of fearing war and understanding PTSD itself. When we begin to understand war, to understand the real struggles of PTSD, we begin to discuss and look for solutions to those problems. Moreover, we assign a realistic figure to PTSD, and we stop viewing victims as mere victims, but sympathize and better support them with empathy and understanding instead of a quickly thrown together “warning.”

To progress as a society, students need to be exposed to difficult material. There is no problem with an individual choosing not to engage with content because of past trauma, but there is a serious concern when people neglect talking and learning about serious issues. This is exactly what is beginning to happen. Students are avoiding important discussions and exposure to difficult material because of potential triggers to some individuals they don't even talk to because of the potential to offend them.

What’s more, “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” and the extreme mentality that accompanies them are so overused that they take away the legitimacy and power from victims. Simply put, the overuse and overemphasis of safe space rhetoric feels insanely belittling and dehumanizing to some of those affected. Unnecessary trigger warnings, although well intended, can push the victim narrative so far that victims begin to feel alienated and uneasy. Blanking out a problem because it may be triggering and continuously portraying victims as mere victims is damaging, for it detracts and discourages people from addressing the core issue. We cannot label victims only as victims, without seeking to understand their experiences. Additionally, those affected grow more afraid of stepping up and speaking out because they themselves fear that their own experience is almost taboo to mention. That is paving the way to further censorship, and taking the realness out of experience by silencing conversations in its own right.

It is difficult to learn about the horrors of sexual assault, of war, of racial prejudice. It is critical that we protect and respect those affected. But we must learn the true extent of the issues that warrant these trigger warnings, and if we truly want to protect those affected, we need to act against the issues with adequate knowledge and understanding. If we do not debate or discuss, we do not learn the severity of the “triggers” and we do not act accordingly. A “trigger warning” may protect a sexual assault survivor from a trauma induced flashback, but the knowledge about the reality of sexual assault will produce an understanding that combats the rape culture that worked to cause the trauma in the first place. Protecting a victim goes far beyond a two-word warning.

When we begin to delegitimize victims and cut out conversations that need to be happening, we've failed in our pursuit of social justice. Right now, we’re failing. There are countless “trigger warnings” plastered on articles criticizing social issues, but the issues continue to permeate our culture. We cannot continue avoiding discussion and knowledge because of “triggers.” Rather, we must educate ourselves and act against the reasons these warnings exist.