Rethinking Teaching: Trigger Warnings (Part I)

What good are trigger warnings and why bother to discuss them now? I think this is an opportune time to address some of the basics of higher level teaching. I'll make just a couple of comments about Covid-19 and Black Lives Matter. First, the idea that there are more important things to discuss than trigger warnings is true. Covid-19 with all its implications is one of them. The dramatic and important rise of anti-racist activism is another. I'm not blogging about these things because there are better people than I to comment on them. I'll leave that truth there. I support Black Lives Matter and it is because I support it that I -- as a self-identifying white man -- want to listen to what others have to say instead of trying to put my views on the table. Second, I will try to offer a thought or two about Covid-19 and BLM another day with regard to its impact on American republicanism. But, enough people are doing that already and so jumping into a crowded field and competing for space is not going really advance any consideration of that issue and so I'll leave it of for a bit. 

We can and should discuss pedagogy because we have an opportunity to do so. The changes forced on higher education by Covid-19 allow us to revisit the way we teach and the ideals and values that animate our teaching. They allow us to think about what makes for good and effective teaching in a more concerted way. My goal is to try to engage a serious points relating to pedagogy over a series of blogs and I thought I'd begin with a matter that has become controversial for reasons that, I will confess, are not entirely clear to me, at least from an educational perspective: trigger warnings.

I support trigger warnings and I have, without actually using that term, been providing them for years. It seemed only proper. In fact, I was surprised to discover that there could be some debate about them because just about everyone else I knew treated them as an ordinary -- and non-controversial aspect -- of their role as a post-secondary instructor and as one of the bases of effective instruction. 

Trigger warnings are warnings (alerts) given by faculty to their students in advance of engaging subject matter that might cause some form of trauma or mental distress. For example, if one were going to address a subject that might create a situation where a victim of, say, some sort of violent act, had to mentally relive that violence. Trigger warnings, as I understand them and practice them, involve something more than a mild concern with course materials. I might be annoyed, for instance, by a particular aesthetic style because it does not appeal to me or because I find it kitsch-y, but that is something different than having to relive a deeply violent situation. Trigger warnings might be given for things like depictions of violence, or when students will encounter racist, sexist, or homophobic language. 

The argument against trigger warnings is, in fact, multiple and -- without supporting these arguments because I will argue against them -- there are a couple of points that do require some attention, along with some that don't make much pedagogical sense.  The arguments against trigger warning are that most things are disturbing in one way or another. This is particularly true in post-secondary educational environments where we necessarily address mature, controversial, and disturbing issues. Nothing is gained, or so the argument runs, by coddling university students.  The most extreme versions of this argument become deeply politicized: trigger warnings are presented as little more than a-historical efforts to police language in ways that protect the sensitive feelings of "snowflakes." There is a need, for instance, in viewing films to work with the original language of that film, the original images in it, however disturbing these might be. We should not, so this argument runs, strip works of their original language or engage in acts of self-censorship because of misplaced concerns about propriety. 

In my view, these arguments don't hold up well and, in some cases, completely miss their mark and end up addressing other matters that are not pertinent to the discussion. How so?

The first key point I would make is that trigger warnings do not distract from what is being taught. They don't prevent me, say, from showing, say, The Barbarians Invasions. What they ask of me is relatively modest: that I alert the students in my class to the fact that this film is going to be disturbing and perhaps to provide some overview of that disturbing character. In my view, and I could be wrong about this so feel free to let me know, I don't see anything wrong with letting students know what is coming. I do it for all matters of other things as a ordinary element of my teaching. I let students know when we are discussing the constitution and that this discussion (along with the reading and assignments) will require certain things of them (in this case, for instance, the exploration of a legalized language with which they might not be familiar). I do that to aid my teaching. Why would I do something less -- or, more to my point, stop doing the same thing -- when it comes to disturbing images.  As an instructor, I focus on the idea that I got into this gig to teach. Why would I not use a tool that would aid in my teaching? Why would I not use an easily implementable tool that takes little time if it could improve student engagement with the subject at hand and create a better teaching environment? 

Here is where I think the objectives of teaching have been lost in a politicized discourse. The idea that supposed "snowflakes" (not my term) are the problem misses the point for anyone who has taught. The goal of teaching is to teach. The critique of "snowflakes" is a matter of politicized rhetoric that engages none of the key elements of post-secondary instruction. Instead, it dismisses a potentially useful educational tool for political reasons. As an instructor, I'm not at all certain that that is a good ground on which to make decisions about teaching. 

At this point, when I talk to others about trigger warnings, someone usually says something like, "OK, true, but trigger warnings are not just warnings. They are about all kinds of other things: creating safe spaces, providing mental health resources, designing alternative assignments, and the like. And," whomever is speaking usually continues, "you still haven't addressed the point about the disturbing character of the world and whether or not we should shelter students from it." 

I am going to come back to the other points (alternative assignments, resources, etc.) in a second blog on this subject because they are important matters and I want to address them. I want  to close of my first part of this discussion with the last point: the disturbing character of the world. 

I am aware of this argument, as I think we all are. If we want proof of the disturbing character of the world, it seems to be right in front of us on our TVs every day as we watch protests, and killings, and the spread of disease. But, I might ask two things:

1. Is this all there is the the world? Is the world simply disturbing and, even if it is, is that what it should be? 
2. Are our students actually unaware of the disturbing quality of the world? 

Let me start with the second point first.  My answer is this: I don't think so. I think that students who have suffered from racism or homophobia or gendered violence are well aware of how dark and disturbing the world is. In fact, they are likely far more aware of the problems of the world than I am. I don't, in fact, think they are trying to hide from the world and the suggestion that they are -- I'll return to this point in my next blog -- disguises their intentions. I think they are looking for ways to engage the world that does not promote re-traumatization. I think they are saying "hey, we should be careful and polite in the use of our language." I think they are saying "we need to take steps to ensure that we don't replicate racism or intolerance." I might agree with any given point a proponent of trigger warnings is making or I might not. That can be a matter for further conversation. What I don't doubt is their commitment to addressing the problems that created trauma in the first place or their knowledge of it. 

This strikes me as particularly important to acknowledge when dealing with situations where individuals who have suffered from racism, or sexism, or homophobia, etc., are speaking about issues to which they have direct experience but, say, the instructor does not. As a heterosexual male I have never suffered from homophobia. I am not at all certain that I should claim the right to define what should, or should not, trouble people who have. I am not at all certain that I should say, to, say a victim of a racism that I have never experienced that they should accept my use of slur terms because the world is tough. Who am I to define what is, and is not, tough for that person? Or, equally importantly, what could, or could not, be an effective response for them? 

And, herein lies one of the key problems with this level response: the idea that people who have not experienced racism or violence or sexism should claim the right to tell those who have that they should, in effect, "suck it up," is not a pedagogical position. It is not predicated on any theory of effective education.  What good does this view serve? How does it advance education? The statement that "the world is disturbing" is not a reason to continue to be disturbing and does not provide rationale for ignoring simple and easy responses (trigger warnings) that could advance the pedagogical enterprise. 

I also think that using racist terms in class or showing deeply sexist representations and claiming that one is only holding a mirror up to the world is problematic for another reason. This is, for me, a matter of faith, but I think it is one that I could support if called upon to do so. I don't think the world is all pain and all suffering and just disturbing. Even in the most difficult moments, people find reasons to hope. Even in the most trying circumstances people seek to build connections with each other across gender, ethnic, linguistic, identity divisions. They seek to promote what is right in the world and to neglect that by saying that the world is disturbing or mean or tough is to neglect the complexity and nuance of human behaviours and the diversity of humanity. 

In teaching, the question we ask our selves is this: on what assumptions do I build my pedagogy? Should I begin from the assumption that the world is simply disturbing and use that as a rationale to replicate its disturbing elements. Or, should I assume nuance and complexity and diversity and mixed motives and try to illustrate what an inclusive and positive response to the deeply disturbing elements of contemporary life might be by illustrating that I care about my students whether or not I share there experiences. Trigger warnings are not a panacea. They do not solve all problems. But, I chose to build my pedagogy on this latter perspective and to try to model that behaviour. I will undoubtedly not succeed. But, I'd rather not succeed caring about my students than not.