<p>I don’t think censors are needed. To me, all that is needed is that the syllabus must list all the course materials in enough detail so students can review them in advance if they want to.</p>
<p>@sylvan8798 I don’t think anybody could or should make a blacklist in which specific books and other reading materials are approved by a board or committee of some kind. I do think a responsible instructor will orient the students at the beginning of a course about how to approach certain readings, what their purpose is, and how they might offend some people. But that’s not censorship, and certainly not having a review committee that would come up with approved or censored readings for all courses and contexts. </p>
<p>Yes, that’s almost exactly what does happen to textbooks in K-12 curricula, with somebody approving how certain “disputed” subjects are dealt with – evolution, the American civil war, etc. I don’t much like that process but it’s the political reality about the role of state boards of education, dictated in part by the largest or standard-bearing textbook markets in California and Texas. When I was growing up and attending K-12 in California (L.A.), the United Nations was a verboten subject because the head of the state board of education was an arch conservative. (Not to mention that one of my teachers got into trouble for wearing an AFT pin on his lapel.)</p>
<p>College, however, is the place to let it all hang out. Good, bad, and fugly. There can be curriculum developers or committees. But no board of censors should decide specifically what can(not) be assigned across all curricula and courses. Students should be alerted to the content and the purpose of the readings, but the instructor needn’t censor or direct the students to each and every possibly offensive item. </p>
<p>One concern I have with this idea is a practical one: who’s going to decide what potential triggers need warnings, and who’s going to determine what materials might have those triggers? I don’t like the idea that faculty might be subject to discipline or even criticism if they failed to discern that Moby Dick might trigger an unexpected trauma in a student. This is why I think it’s enough to indicate on the syllabus that Moby Dick will be read.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Blanket warnings about possibly offending material will be put everywhere.</p>
<p>
I think that’s OK. It reminds people who may have these triggers that it’s up to them to check the syllabus, and maybe they’ll do so.</p>
<p>What if I’m offended by trigger warnings? ;)</p>
<p>In all seriousness, I’d be in favor of requiring book lists to be available before classes begin, regardless of subject matter. Then, adults can decide whether or not they can handle the material. I think that would be beneficial anyway, even for those without sensitivities. Could help greatly with course selection.</p>
<p>But what if the course with the “triggering” book was required for the major? Could the student actually opt out of that book and request a less upsetting substitute, kind of like middle school?</p>
<p>I just can’t believe this is serious even though I’ve seen the evidence myself. How are these kids ever going to cope with the world if they can’t handle “triggers”?</p>
<p>Someone that easily offended would have a hard time studying biology or any humanities or social studies subject.</p>
<p>Do kids today think that we didn’t have any incidents in our lives causing triggers? Or our parents? </p>
<p>What disturbs me is that undergraduate students are asking for this. In my generation, it was the adults asking for warnings on albums with graphic lyrics, and Tipper Gore was vilified for leading that charge.</p>
<p>Why are these kids doing this? Here’s my theory: We, the helicopter parent generation, overparented them, and now they cannot live without all the warnings. Ouch. </p>
<p>I think a lot of people today pathologize their own normal discomfort when they encounter something that is challenging, even disturbing. </p>
<p>Also, it’s interesting that people are bombarded with graphic visual imagery that probably should be disturbing and most deal with that fine. But words and ideas have to be carefully parsed so as not to inflict damage on the overly-sensitive. We have become a weird and contradictory society. </p>
<p>@Hanna - your post cracked me up. I was at the grocery store yesterday and they had samples of wild sockeye. It was delicious! The sign said “contains fish”</p>
<p>^^
Now I have to clean my screen! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but this seems awfully obvious from the get-go.</p>
<p>…I don’t remember “abusive and misogynistic violence” in The Great Gatsby. Perhaps I didn’t read that one too closely. Also, I read all of these things in high school, not college.</p>
<p>Generally, I’m a fan of trigger warnings on very specific kinds of things for very specific reasons. Like, for example, if I were showing a film in class that had a graphic scene of sexual assault or military violence that could potentially trigger a victim, I would warn my students about that before hand (via email or a note on the syllabus). Likewise, if I was teaching a class with generally benign material but was assigning a particularly graphic reading (that described something in detail enough to make me feel squick) I would also warn. Duh. Why subject your students to possible nightmares and panic attacks for weeks just because you didn’t want to pause for 5 minutes to warn them? I think that’s just common courtesy.</p>
<p>If I taught a course on war and used graphic depictions of torture, I would let students know that on the first day and let them decide whether they wanted to stay, drop, or skip those days (at their own risk, of course, although they could arrange things with me separately). That is not about fragility of mind. PTSD is a real thing, and in a campus full of veterans who knows what could potentially trigger a downward spiral that could permanently damage a student’s health and well-being. There’s no threat to academic freedom inherent in simply warning students that something very specific may be upsetting to them. That’s different from feeling offense; that is a real risk to a student’s mental health.</p>
<p>But it’s not possible to warn for everything. Graphic sexual assault and violence may be no-brainers, but shall I warn for a passage about gambling in case there is a gambling addict in the class?</p>
<p>And as for a general warning that there may be material discussing themes of a sexual or violent nature, especially in a class where reading primary texts is a huge part? No. That’s implied by the class! We read things in the canon of English literature that are thought-provoking and cover the spectrum of human behavior and thought; those will necessarily consider sexual and violent themes. And I totally agree that this shouldn’t be about offense at all. I don’t care if you feel personally offended. I care about potential threats to mental health. So my thought process about whether or not to place a warning would be, “Does this have a serious potential to make a victim of past trauma slip into a panic attack or go to a bad place of mental health?” If the answer is yes - then a warning is in order, I think, although not required. (In some ways the onus is also on those with the mental health issue to ask these questions.)</p>
<p>Some boilerplate language slapped on the syllabus just lessens the meaning and makes it easily ignorable, defeating the purpose. </p>
<p>I also think that the meaning of the phrase “trigger warning” has been inappropriately broadened on the Internet. It used to refer simply to warning people of things that might “trigger” an unpleasant mental health reaction, primarily in people suffering from PTSD. It was reserved for graphic descriptions/depictions of sexual assault and violence - mostly victims of sexual assault or those who survived wars. Then it was expanded to the mere mention of sexual assault. Now I see people doing stuff like “trigger warning for racism” when they discuss something some said that was mildly racist. Um…ur doin it wrong.</p>
<p>There is some material that could make SOME students extremely uncomfortable without being PTSD-mental illness fodder for THOSE students. Personally, I would want to know in advance if that were the case. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Daisy’s horrible husband punches his mistress in the nose. (I was more worried about the puppy that no one seemed to be taking care of.)</p>
<p>Personally, I would appreciate some kind of heads-up for “suicide” content. Can live without it, and for some works you tend to know going in that there’s a suicide involved. It might be one of those “very specific” circumstances Juillet mentions. </p>
<p>I’m still not seeing any problem that a detailed syllabus couldn’t solve.</p>
<p>I don’t see any real argument against letting students know what they are going to be subjected to, in some way…whether that is an official trigger warning, or just book descriptions on a syllabus. As an adult, I do avoid seeing graphic depictions of things, or reading detailed descriptions of some things because I know that it will affect me. I appreciate the warnings on the news when they say something ‘may be disturbing’ . I can get the story and be informed without knowing every little detail. </p>
<p>Literature is supposed to affect people.</p>