EDITORIAL: Are we taking trigger warnings and politically correct speech too far?

With college classes starting up for the fall, it is only natural that conversation surrounding trigger warnings and politically correct speech in classrooms will start up, too.

In its September issue, The Atlantic published a piece discussing the use of trigger warnings on college campuses, as well as in the real world. It suggests that by implementing trigger warnings into college curriculums, schools aren’t exposing students to the real-life problems they will face after graduation.

The term “trigger warning” refers to the idea that professors should provide students with advance warning when a potentially disturbing topic will be mentioned in the classroom. The Atlantic specifically profiles trigger warnings for race and sexual assault, for example.

But perhaps a student may be triggered by something other than discussion about rape — a student who has suffered from an eating disorder may be triggered by talk of something as seemingly simplistic as food. Another student may be traumatized by a horror movie that he or she is expected to watch in a classroom setting.

While the last issue may seem silly to some, the trauma is very real to the person who is experiencing it. We as individuals are in no place to discount the triggers others around us face. But where do we draw the line in classrooms? The answer isn’t found simply, but the first step to understanding is in understanding the significance of trigger warnings.

The Huffington Post writer David Moshman, a clinical psychologist, argues that we as human beings already filter around what triggers us. College campuses are responsible for taking care of students and keeping them safe in both a physical and mental capacity. To some, a triggering discussion may be as much of a violation as if someone walked into their classroom with a gun. We simply can’t gauge how detrimental a trigger may be to a student.

That being said, it should not and cannot be solely the professor’s responsibility to provide warnings for every potential trigger that may arise in his or her classroom. It’s virtually impossible to predict what each individual in every college classroom may be triggered by. For this reason, it is imperative that students understand their responsibility in avoiding their trigger during classes. If one suffers from a seemingly unfamiliar or rare trigger, it is his or her responsibility to mention it to the professor.

For some, trigger warnings offer less of a safe haven and more of a ladder rung towards speaking about the topics that trigger them. If a discussion is prefaced with an acknowledgment that the topic may be difficult for some to speak about, perhaps that understanding would allow deeper conversation among students. Not only would this be a safer space in which those triggered can speak, but it can also provide a learning experience for those who don’t experience the same triggers as their peers.

However, the issue The Atlantic is addressing lies within the fact that most students don’t take the time to speak one-on-one with their professors. Instead, they turn right to administration. The front page story lists multiple examples in which professors were unable to properly execute their jobs due to trigger warnings, and even more prominently, due to political correctness. Some professors have been forced into resigning or seeking mental health evaluations for making what some would call “jokes” in the classroom.

Just as with trigger warnings, students must take some responsibility for the topics that may offend them. In other words, students must understand that they cannot go through life simply avoiding what they may deem offensive or uncomfortable. Like it or not, social media has made this nearly impossible.

This isn’t to say that we as a human race have become overly sensitive, but rather that the Internet has given us a platform in which we are encouraged to state our opinions in a way that had never been so prominent before. The issue isn’t that the U.S. has suddenly begun using politically incorrect terminology, but that we as a culture are more aware of it.

In July, the University of New Hampshire Campus Reform released a “Bias-Free Language Guide,” which lists hundreds of terms that are now deemed unacceptable in society. The guide suggests referring to one who was previously regarded as “rich” as a “person of material wealth.”

This language guide lies at the start of a potentially detrimental path. Who is to say that replacing the word “poor” with “low economic status related to a person’s education, occupation and income” is any less offensive?

This isn’t to say that creating a wider understanding of politically correct speech is wrong — quite the contrary. But these extremes seem to lead to more prejudices and less accomplishments overall. Simply changing the language we normally use to describe a person or persons won’t change the stereotypes we associate with them. Changing the words “rich” and “poor” won’t change what we as individuals and as a society already associate with those terms. Aren’t we creating more damage by skirting around terms that already exist? By not facing the issue head on, we are creating less of an opportunity for conversation and more of an opportunity to sweep problems under the rug.

In general, more communication regarding trigger warnings and politically correct speech is key. Clearly, there is a tough line to be drawn here in terms of being politically correct while also respecting others’ past experiences. In reality, it is impossible to please everyone. It’s easy to call trigger warnings damaging when you aren’t the person who needs them, just as it is easy to discount UNH’s language guide when you aren’t the person to whom a potentially offensive term refers. Perhaps trigger warnings and politically correct speech in college classrooms can influence a healthier space in which students can become more understanding of their peer’s struggles.