Trigger Warning: this article contains a viewpoint that is pro-trigger warnings.
Though it may seem silly, I believe it to be apt as the sphere of conversation explodes around the merit and/or pointlessness of trigger warnings.
Since the University of Chicago released this letter to their incoming freshmen class stating that they support neither trigger warnings nor safe spaces on their campus, the voices that are anti-tw have become considerably more vocal about their disdain for the practice of prefacing articles and such with them.
The core of the message being put forward by UChicago is one that is not particularly surprising given some context: students should not be able to hide from ideas and viewpoints with which they disagree.
Not only is this a relatively uncontroversial argument, but it’s also a cornerstone of liberal education. We look to innovate by overcoming the things which challenge us. Even President Bro-Bama made a statement denouncing the idea of students outrightly avoiding ideas that were upsetting to them. Additionally, a plethora of research has been done about how much diversity in ideas and backgrounds improves the quality of work output by any given group.
However, there are some problems with the arguments against trigger warnings. First, there are many who seem to misunderstand the true purpose of trigger warnings. Many do believe that their point is simply so that people can have a wide berth to avoid these types of ideas, but in reality, they are more like road signs. That is to say, the purpose of trigger warnings are so that people can prepare themselves for the fact that what is ahead may be damaging to them. When people see the sign that says “Mudslides Possible,” the vast majority of them don’t turn around and avoid using that road, but they can prepare themselves in case that eventuality does occur.
The camp that is against safe spaces and trigger warnings would have you believe that the vast majority of students are using them to avoid harsh topics, but most of the evidence that is utilized for this argument is anecdotal at best.
“I knew this one girl who did X” is not sufficient proof that everyone behind a movement is doing that. Are there some people who go overboard? Of course there are. But there are also some people abusing welfare through fraud accounts. To denounce the entire system for that 2% of people is just as ludicrous as saying that everyone who supports trigger warnings wants mass censorship of content.
One final thing to consider is a simple cost-benefit analysis. It took me approximately 12 seconds to type the trigger warning, and it probably took you considerably less time to read it. It is so little work for either of us that it can reasonably be considered inconsequential, but if this were an article about rape or murder, that extra 12 seconds of typing may have been a world of difference for an individual who has experienced that.
So I leave you with this final question to ponder: what is the real harm in giving people forewarning?
