Kurt R.A. Giambastiani

I’m going to kick the poo-pile here, so stand back.

I’m not even going to start with a caveat or a disclaimer.

“Trigger warnings” are ridiculous.

If you’re not aware of what they are, a “trigger warning” is a label or blurb placed on a book or written work, intended to give fair warning that said work contains something that some people, somewhere, at some time, may find distressing due to trauma they have experienced in the past. In short, it is a warning that the work may “trigger” memories of past trauma. “Trigger warnings” developed primarily in the feminist blogosphere, and in a culture that is as comfortable with rape, misogyny, and abuse against women as ours obviously is, in a society where 20% of women report a sexual assault (not counting those that go unreported), I thoroughly understand the original intent: to protect/warn off women from reliving the sexual assault that at least every fifth one has suffered. This intention was broadened to include other causes of PTSD, such as the effects imagery of war and violence might have on war veterans.

However, as we do with all things in Western society, we have now taken the idea to an absurd degree.

As reported in the New York Times, students at the University of California, Santa Barbara, at Oberlin, at Rutgers, and at a host of other schools have called for “trigger warnings” on their syllabi. Oberlin College, in its draft guide to professors on how to craft their syllabi, suggests that trigger warnings should not be restricted to sexual misconduct.

It instructs:

“Be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression.”

They have got to be kidding.

Do you mean to tell me that someone out there has PTSD as a result of…classism? “Issues of privilege” (whatever the hell that might be)? These aren’t protections against triggers. They’re protections against feeling uncomfortable, and that’s just plain absurd. Some points:

• The basic concept of “trigger warnings” is flawed, because triggers are highly individualized. While broad generalizations may be drawn (i.e., that scenes of rape are likely to trigger PTSD reactions in those who have been raped), it’s not a guarantee of safety. A trigger can be something completely innocuous or seemingly unconnected with an act of violence.
• Don’t conflate “trigger warnings” with the ratings we put on movies and video games. Those are warnings that help us to protect children, not adults. Adults are responsible for themselves and capable of making their own decisions.
• Broadening the definition of “trigger warnings” in this way insults the true nature of PTSD and flashback triggers. Those who suffer from PTSD know precisely what their triggers are and take pains to avoid them.
• One of the objectives of a college education is to expose students to things they might not otherwise meet. People, ideologies, concepts, and (yes!) the realities of the greater world for which they are being prepared.
• It is not society’s duty to protect its people from discomfort. The idea that we must swaddle our university students from anything that might unsettle them is ludicrous on its face.

Moreover, putting a trigger warning on a piece of literature gives students permission to “skip a bit,” solely because they find the subject matter objectionable or uncomfortable. Would you allow a medical student to skip the anatomy of the intestine because they found the subject matter “uncomfortable?” If you enroll in a course in literature, you’re going to study literature. You’re going to read books about all sorts of lives and times and troubles and joys.

We shouldn’t Disney-fy the literary canon because it includes scenes of human misery.

Grow up, folks.

[Let the hate mail commence.]

k