The Oxford Dictionary defines a trigger warning as a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc., alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material. Nowhere in the definition does it mention freedom of speech or that a trigger warning could censor a speaker or professor. Someone should have told this to Dean of Students John Ellison at Chicago University (UC).
Ellison sent incoming freshmen home with a letter congratulating them on becoming enrolled in UC. In this letter Ellison goes on to discuss how dedicated UC is to pursuing academic freedom and fighting censorship. These causes are certainly worthy and I endorse them 100 percent. Then the letter takes an unexpected turn. “Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings’,” Ellison wrote. His first mistake was to make light of trauma survivors by deauthenticating trigger warnings.
Dr. Karen Dillon, an English professor at Blackburn, analyzed Ellison’s tone and word choice used in this letter. Dillon described Ellison’s diction and tone as sarcastic, patronizing, and “dickish.” As someone who grew up with a family member who had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), deauthenticating trauma triggers is something I don’t take lightly. Triggers can bring back memories of trauma while causing the victim to experience intense emotional or mental reactions. These reactions can vary from elevated heart rate or panic attacks to complete mental recollection of the trauma. Simply put, someone who has PTSD can relive the events that gave them the disorder in real time with even a small shocking reminder of the traumatic events. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, “Re-experiencing symptoms may cause problems in a person’s everyday routine. The symptoms can start from the person’s own thoughts and feelings. Words, objects, or situations that are reminders of the event can also trigger re-experiencing symptoms.”
Ellison seems to think these trigger warnings are censoring lessons and affecting academic freedom. I wasn’t aware that issuing trigger warnings was such a bother to college professors. I decided to get a Blackburn perspective on the issue and interviewed several professors in different fields. All of these professors gave me the same answer: it isn’t a problem. When asked their opinion on the letter, all of the professors agreed with the core message of academic freedom but said that the letter was wrong to invalidate trigger warnings in the classroom. Psychology professor Dr. Kevin Karl said, “This letter is trying to limit the students…It talks about free expression and it talks about making sure everyone is an independent person. Then he puts limits on it in the next sentence; that doesn’t make any sense. You can’t contradict yourself in the same letter.”
The real problem that I have with this letter is that by choosing to not support trigger warnings, Ellison and CU have effectively discriminated against and isolated a group of people, including combat veterans, sexual assault victims and survivors of abuse or other violence. According to the Nebraska Department of Veteran Affairs almost 10 percent of Americans will develop PTSD, and not all of these people will require trigger warnings, but a short sentence at the beginning of a lecture seems like a small price to pay to ensure students or observers are not affected negatively.
*editors note*
The print edition of this article had a mis-attributed quote