De Minimis
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12

do trigger warnings stifle freedom of speech in academia?

22/5/2018

 
Issue 12, Semester 1

By Ayu Maylinda


From personal experiences, I gather that the main contention against trigger warnings is that they potentially stifle freedom of speech in academia. The notion of trigger warnings seems to signal an unwelcome encroachment of freedom of speech, a prized ideal within Western democracies and the tradition of Western liberal thought. There is an unspoken understanding that the University, as the intellectual epicentre of a “free” society, must be a place where opinions can be expressed without censorship or restraint; trigger warnings are seen to prevent freedom of speech from taking place and thus stifling intellectual growth and stimulation.
Picture
Before we unpack this contention, we must understand what trigger warnings are. In essence, trigger warnings are statements at the start of a communication alerting the audience to the fact that what is about to be introduced contains potentially distressing material. This definition allows us to explore the true purpose of trigger warnings.

The trigger warning is to be conveyed to an ‘audience’, and is therefore  designed for the group of persons who may be receiving communication as a whole. However within that larger group, there is a subset of persons who may perceive the communication as potentially distressing. Ergo, trigger warnings are general statements made to a general audience but meaningful only a subset of individuals who may suffer exposure to past trauma as a result of the communication in question.

The impact of trigger warnings is twofold. The symbolic impact of a trigger warning is that it is  an acknowledgement from the institution (here, the university) that one’s trauma is acknowledged as existent and valid. The psychological impact of a trigger warning is a red light encouraging an individual to pause and reflect upon whether they are psychologically capable of handling the communication, and to encourage them to develop coping strategies, should they choose to partake. The two, in tandem, underlie the important notion that everyone comes to the institution at different starting points based on personal history and life experiences, and to deny this is to fundamentally dismiss the vagaries of human experience.

Trigger warnings, which occur at the outset of participation in the speech environment, would serve not to actively mediate the environment for every participant, but to frame the ensuing participation in a way that acknowledges that certain individuals may not be comfortable participating in the environment and are welcome to take steps to resolve their discomfort. The individuals’ response to the trigger warnings have nothing at all to do with the environment as a whole, except perhaps to reduce the number of participants. On this view, the speech environment is not compromised for individuals who are not adversely affected by the content and freedom of speech is hence maintained for those individuals (i.e. the assumed majority). Furthermore, there is some sense to the idea that trigger warnings would allow individuals potentially affected by sensitive material to participate freely within the speech environment, since they are allowed time and space to prepare themselves before potentially traumatising discussions.

There is an argument that trigger warnings compel individuals who are not adversely affected by the material to adopt a language that is politically correct. I acknowledge the merits of this argument, but challenge those who feel this way to consider that the urge towards political correctness may not necessarily constitute a direct challenge to free speech, but a mere opportunity to consider that the heart of communication is an assumption of commonality between participants, and that, for human beings, this is communicative empathy: the realisation that words have power, and that words sometimes hurt. I would hope that this empathy will be seen as more than just a “millennial trend”.
Ayu Maylinda is a third-year JD student
An Onymous commenter
22/5/2018 10:55:12 pm

An aspect few people seem to acknowledge is that lecturers don’t necessarily pre plan the entirety of what they are going to say during the seminar/lecture. Some don’t plan it at all.

A potentially distressing matter might be thought of on the spot and used as an example to demonstrate a point, but in a world of trigger warnings lecturers will be constantly second guessing themselves whether they should or should not say something because they haven’t given prior warning. Lecturers will probably just find it easier to not discuss the issue and something that might have be educationally valuable instead just gets brushed under the carpet. Discussion of topics like sexual assault and other violence would certainly become less visible and subjected to less scrutiny, but is that really what advocates want?

Another potential danger is the actual planned course material being altered in the interests of it just being easier than to potentially violate the trigger warning protocols, with the educational value of that material lost. The case in administrative law whose name I forget which dealt with sexual assault among other things comes to mind as something which might end up on th chopping board.

Lily Hart
23/5/2018 07:43:50 pm

I am curious to know if those such as An onymous commentor were as passionate about staff ‘free speech’ when the University’s new Enterprise Agreement was announced? Or is it just trigger warnings that you’re triggered by?

An Onymous Commenter
23/5/2018 08:38:28 pm

Yes, I am equally concerned about that. You do know it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, yes? But sorry for not raising Enterprise Agreements in response to an article about trigger warnings I guess.

Seriously
23/5/2018 08:45:24 pm

Lmao apply cold water to burn, Lily. Hysterical attempt to reframe the argument.


Comments are closed.
    Picture

    Archives

    October 2022
    September 2022
    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12