Last month, American University’s Faculty Senate released a resolution affirming the rights of students and professors to speak about controversial topics without fear of retaliation, regardless of whether they warn the audience of potential ‘triggers.’
While I approve of the resolution, many students take issue to it. In particular, Eagle columnist Zach Moore wrote that “the fact that these concepts are being brought up in a discussion of trigger warnings underlines that the Faculty Senate and other opponents of trigger warnings have either misunderstood or misconstrued the purpose that trigger warnings serve.”
Moore believes that AU’s Faculty Senate may not have a complete grasp on the context with which we discuss these issues. He defends trigger warnings, explaining that they’re a common courtesy, and that they don’t impede free speech. I don’t disagree.
Trigger warnings themselves are, and should be considered, an expression of free speech. Just as I reserve the right to use provocative language without retaliation, students and professors should be granted the same right to warn others about any of their views that be controversial or difficult to stomach. However, any attempt to mandate these sorts of warnings implicitly represents a threat to free speech.
Refer to my above premise: free speech protections, such as the Faculty Senate resolution, actually protect your right to “trigger warn.” Requiring them would manipulate your speech precisely as severely as banning them would.
“If...a faculty member feels the need to have trigger warnings, whether verbally in class or in a syllabus, that’s okay,” Chairman Larry Engel told The Eagle in September.
Many students claim that the AU administration misunderstands trigger warnings. But then those same students seem to advocate for the administration to get more involved with the issue by requiring trigger warnings. Why not give freedom, discretion and common sense a try?
The issue with mandatory trigger warnings in academia is that they seek to apply a “one-size-fits-all” approach to sensitive material. If an administration establishes some authority over the topic, then they are inherently bound to generalize the standards and policies they impose. Any such policy implicitly threatens to punish students or faculty who fall outside those standards.
Common sense should inform us that if you’re about to say something possibly offensive or hurtful, you may want to warn the listener. Let me demonstrate:
I’m about to use an offensive word. Please skip the next line if that will offend you.
Fuck.
As shown, I was able to warn the reader. Further, I was able to do so without being forced into it! A miracle!
While this may seem like a silly example, I’d refer you back to Moore’s column. He included a warning at the beginning of his article without being forced to. Allowing students and faculty the discretion to use warnings when they seem appropriate is far more sensical than broadly imposing standards that ignore the differences and intersectionality of specific audiences.
Regulation of speech from any authority figure, no matter how well-intended, is un-American. AU should (and continues to) maintain values consistent with our nation’s constitution.
As you think about this issue, remember that freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. Even with the freedom to say anything, I willingly choose to limit words of mine that can be hurtful. In a prestigious setting such as a university, I’d expect that the participants in a touchy conversation could exercise the same discretion by choice.
The decision to use or not use warnings before discussing tough topics can be made by individuals, and the incentives of social and academic feedback are sufficient to incentivize their consideration. Freedom of speech does not mean anarchical speech, and accountability does not require an implied threat of formal penalization.
If you believe that the administration doesn’t understand trigger warnings, then you should be in favor of the free speech resolution. The Faculty Senate did not ban trigger warnings; they simply stated that they do not endorse warnings and will never curtail or force speech.
If the Faculty Senate truly doesn’t understand trigger warnings, as some say, then suggesting that they should endorse them or regulate certain speech is nonsense.
-
Ford Fischer is a senior in the School of Communications. He is also the Managing Editor of News2Share.com.
edpage@theeagleonline.com
Delivering American University's news and views since 1925
