A WARNING FOR Content WARNINGS

22/5/2018

Issue 12, Semester 1

By Kevin Cui

If you’ve been keeping track of discussions over content warnings on De Minimis and the Facebook JD page, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the matter has been settled, and the entire cohort is unreservedly on board with the LSS’s proposal to introduce content warning requirements for upsetting or distressing content. Perhaps the absence of vigorous debate or productive counter-arguments is understandable given the fear of being labelled a bigot if one were to express a dissenting opinion. What I don’t believe, though, is that nobody questions the implications of our current approach to handling distressing or objectionable dialogue, or no longer believes in the value of a healthy dose of skepticism.

Just to clarify, my purpose in writing this article is not to lambast proponents of content warnings, but merely to remind everyone of the difficulties and obstacles which are all too easily drowned out amidst the furore. While I respect the merits of providing content warnings for the benefit of individuals suffering from ongoing trauma, I would question whether doing so in a pedagogical context is, in some ways, antithetical to the purpose and spirit of law school, and education writ large.

It’s all well and good to mandate that lecturers provide warnings for distressing material, but my main concern is who gets to decide what material crosses that threshold and, in turn, when the obligation to provide adequate warning has been met. It’s almost impossible to predict how a varied and diverse student body will react to certain material; furthermore, if it were alleged that a faculty member was negligent in providing adequate warning, there would be no way to distinguish genuine complaints from those that are a fig-leaf for the suppression of discourse that one finds morally or politically objectionable. Already, we’ve seen the content warning debate cast aspersions on “the gendered nature” of the chosen case law in Evidence.

Most worrying of all is the potential chilling effect that these requirements could have on the willingness of lecturers to discuss controversial, yet pertinent, material, such as the Four Corners report on the Saxon Mullins case. The risk of disciplinary sanction alone is enough to threaten the quality of discourse within class discussions.

On another level, subjects such as “Evidence and Proof” and “Criminal Law and Procedure” by their very nature are intertwined with confronting topics such as sexual and domestic violence. Do we really need to introduce warnings where it’s obvious that there will be discussion of these topics? In addition, the primary materials that will be relied upon (which set out the framework for class discussions) are already laboriously set out in the reading guide of every subject. Can we sensibly provide content warnings for areas of law where fundamental principles are based upon knowledge of case law involving these topics?

This is not to mention that the sad reality of legal practice is that it often involves work relating to violence and trauma. While some may say that those suffering from ongoing trauma can simply avoid those areas of practice, that argument sits uneasily with our system of admission to legal practice, which requires lawyers to have a minimum competency in certain areas such as criminal and evidence law. Furthermore, how much foresight can we have over the trajectory of our legal careers? Giving students the option to opt-out of confronting those issues could have a detrimental effect on the long-term value of legal education.

Lastly, I think we should all be concerned about the implications of the overuse of content warnings, and more specifically whether doing so inculcates a culture of hostility towards the open discussion of difficult and confronting ideas. According to a commenter on Tess McGuire’s article, an objective of content warnings is to prevent class discussion from descending “into areas which can be really hurtful to students, even if unintentionally”. I would argue that it’s better to air these dialogues in the court of public opinion rather than allow them to simmer silently. If the scope of content warnings is not limited to the protection of individuals suffering from diagnosed trauma triggers, then the use of content warnings promotes the idea that an acceptable solution to issues such as sexual and domestic violence is to shut down discourse and dissent. That would be dangerous move for a supposedly progressive society, and in the long run only serve to perpetuate the sources of violence and trauma.

Just to reiterate, I’m not against the use of trigger warnings wholesale; they certainly have a place in polite, civil society. But I expect more from universities. I expect universities to take an uncompromising attitude in ensuring that their graduates are equipped to face future challenges. I expect universities to be the safeguard of open discourse about uncomfortable ideas. Above all, I expect any proposal that potentially undermines those objectives to be subject to far greater scrutiny than a few De Minimis articles or Facebook posts.

13 Comments

Hear hear link

22/5/2018 11:00:22 pm

Hear hear

Tess

22/5/2018 11:07:43 pm

Great article Kevin, thanks for engaging in the discussion over the use of content warnings.

I think you raise some good points, particularly regarding the ‘threshold’ issue as to what material would be deemed ‘triggering’ enough to warn students about before launching into discussion. I think this is a difficult question, and requires a nuanced approach – I personally think that it is a case-by-case matter but that at the very least there should be warnings regarding rape, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence.

I understand your concern with regards to the ‘chilling’ effect that content warnings could have and I think Ayu has done a great job in her article at responding to these concerns but just quickly - (1) there is no current risk of disciplinary sanction (and I doubt such a consequence would be included in a new policy on content warnings) and (2) there is no reason to believe that we would then not discuss these topics at all. If it is part of the course content I’m sure that the teacher would continue to discuss the matter, if it is not, but they deem it of enough value to bring up regardless, then they can alert the class as to its potential triggering nature and then discuss. I personally never suggested that the Four Corners matter should not have been discussed at all, but that because there were students in the class who had experienced sexual assault (as there are in most – this is a woman majority student body after all), it would have been considerate and respectful to allow them to prepare themselves for the confronting discussion.

To your point that it is so obvious that Evidence and Criminal law will involve discussion of sexual and domestic violence that we don’t need content warnings; I think that negates to account for the fact that this is not always done in a purely, ‘case analysis’, legalised way. For example, in Crim last year, one of the professors chose to read out the statement that the rape survivor wrote to her perpetrator Brock Turner. This is statement is highly emotional and upsetting, for anyone to read and hear. But in this circumstance, students in the class, again, some who had survived similar awful acts, were not given any warning and found it truly upsetting and confronting.

In a different Crim class, one professor wanted to put up photos of aborted foetuses up on the projected screen, because they were the images that protestors were using in the case we were discussing. Whilst it had legal relevance in terms of being related to the facts of the case at hand, it was not really necessary to have to be visually confronted with the images. You can gather that there certainly wasn’t a content warning.

My point is that we are so far off ‘excessively’ providing content warnings that I think both Crim and Evidence staff members will do just fine having to consider whether to issue one when they are going to bring up distressing content and I truly doubt they will refrain from doing so, but hopefully can allow students to at least be more prepared.

Finally, I don’t think that the Law School having a policy on content warnings will detract from our ability to be graduates that are equipped to face future challenges. I think if anything, we will be better equipped to have an understanding and sense of empathy for those of our clients that may be experiencing violence and trauma, and an awareness that not everyone has had the privilege of a life without such experiences. Hopefully we also graduate as humans and not just legal robots!

Thanks again for engaging in this, it isn’t a ‘case-closed’ scenario, and I’m happy to see respectful discussion and different perspectives on this issue!

My opinion

22/5/2018 11:31:45 pm

We all know to which Crim law professor you are referring. To me I found the often very confronting nature of some of the material in his classes to be invaluable to how I thought critically about and reflected upon that material in all its unpleasantness. Things such as the images of the aborted foetuses and the statement written to Brock Turner help students fully appreciate the context of the case and what was at stake, instead of just reading dry slabs of text that become disconnected and unreal.

I don’t think you have given an adequate response to why a catch-all trigger warning at the commencement of the material for the especially confronting subjects of Criminal Law and and Evidence and Proof is not sufficient. Your comment above seems to indicate a broader desire beyond sheltering vulnerable students to sanitise teaching methods you think are objectionable. The sanitised version of these classes that you advocate in which this material is not discussed would from my view certainly have been a decrease in quality and would not have forced me to think deeply about the facts, circumstances and consequences of the cases.

23/5/2018 04:18:21 pm

Hey 'my opinion',

To be clear, I was referring to two different professors. The former occurred in a class I wasn't present for but know about because many young women were upset, and the latter was in the class of the professor you're thinking of. I understand that you found the confronting nature of the material a valuable way for you to engage with the course but what I am trying to raise awareness of is that the experience for many others is that it hinders their educational experience and ability to engage because the similarity of the content to personal suffering they have experienced means that without the capacity to prepare themselves could be re-traumatising. I tried to illustrate what this feels like in my article but understand that it is difficult to grasp if you haven’t personally experienced it. If you’ve never had an abortion, you had nothing to prepare yourself for when those images were brought up, and if you’d never been raped or sexually assaulted, you were also able to absorb that content in a way that was removed from reliving and re-remembering your own personal trauma. Many women however, were not having this experience in class.

It’s easy to underestimate the power of a content warning in such a scenario and it’s difficult to evidence how much of a difference it has to those students who have had traumatic experiences. From my experiences, having a heads up that there will be open discussion of extremely confronting content firstly, makes you feel respected and acknowledged; unashamed of how this may bring up an emotional reaction, secondly, gives you pause to brace yourself and prepare for the discussion, and thirdly, allows other students to reflect on the fact the content at issue may have been the lived experience of fellow students. Where this is done, I personally then feel comfortable with the discussion that follows and can understand it from the academic perspective as opposed to sitting there feeling ill and caught off-guard as you reflect on your personal trauma. I don’t think a catch-all content warning on the reading guide is good enough at serving these purposes and think that is a disservice to the quality of the educational experience of many students.

I think teachers should have the freedom to run their classes using whatever content that they feel enhances the course and learning experiences. However, I think that in doing so, and to provide an enriching and quality educational experience for all students in the class, there should be utilisation of methods that allow us to engage with confronting content in a way that reduces the re-traumatisation of students – I ultimately see this as a worthy pursuit and reject that in undergoing this we will not also be thinking deeply about facts, circumstances and consequences of the cases.

Kevin

22/5/2018 11:54:58 pm

Thanks for the reasoned responses, Tess. And yes, my argument will turn on the actual framing of the LSS's proposal. My main concern would be if the resulting policy means that lecturers HAVE to include content warnings for any potentially harmful material that they raise (which would presumably be backed by punitive measures).

However even framing the policy as a suggestion means that an expectation may be placed on lecturers, and encourage students to effectively 'second-guess' the teaching method of that particular lecturer or their choice of teaching materials.

Simply framing it as a recommendation may not go far enough, though, if the goal is to provide effective warnings for sufferers of trauma. I could imagine an obstinate lecturer continuing to refuse implementing those suggestions...

Roy

23/5/2018 08:20:56 pm

While I respect the arguments raised here, the underlying proposition is that implementing such a trigger warning somehow undermines the academic integrity of either the subject itself, the material, the person presenting said material or another combination thereof.

Let’s be clear here: it’s not difficult to provide a trigger or content warning at the start of classes. Other Faculties (such as MDHS) engage regularly in this approach, given the similarly triggering nature of material. Providing a trigger warning similarly doesn’t mean that a subject coordinator or lecturer necessarily needs to change the material that they’re teaching. A trigger warning is a simple, basic modicum of respect that provides everyone with the opportunity to consider how the presented material may impact them.

If anything, mandating trigger warnings serves to increase the professionalism of the course and the continued pursuit of a safe space for all students to learn and grow as future law graduates.

Anon

24/5/2018 01:11:28 am

A proper reading of the articles and comments of those advocating for trigger warnings aren't pushing just for the mere implementation of trigger warnings; more is being requested. It's the full package of what's being sought that is being discussed, not just the simple implementation of trigger warnings...

Thin end of the Trojan horse wedge

24/5/2018 04:12:32 am

A lot of us resist implementing trigger warnings because we see it as the thin end of the wedge for all sorts of hard leftist policing of speech and the manner in which some topics are discussed and which opinions on those topics are acceptable. I don’t really see this reflected in Tess’ arguments but there are certainly others who want to take things further and which is reflected in some of the comments. The feral nature to which these sorts of movements have degenerated in many American universities should give us all a lot of pause, and cause us all to tread very very carefully.

Dave

23/5/2018 09:21:33 pm

This is just bigoted Kevin. I expect nothing less from a male student.

yolo

23/5/2018 09:44:11 pm

le epic trollz dude hehehhh

Ignorance is bliss

23/5/2018 10:40:06 pm

Thanks for your article Kevin.

I just want to know if you’ve ever had the experience of sitting in class when a teacher brings up distressing content that makes you re-live a previous trauma you’ve experienced? The ignorance of your article in discussing the relevant issues suggest not.

If you’ve never experienced trauma/anxiety or anything associated, you’re not going to understand any of this debate and the importance of imposing content warnings. As such please refrain from contributing ignorant opinions.

23/5/2018 11:17:33 pm

Nice attempt at stifling debate, proves my point precisely.

If you had actually bothered to read the article you'd understand that I acknowledge the difficulties faced by those suffering from trauma but I'm trying to point out that content warnings potentially impact everyone in the cohort. In that case, you don't think that everyone deserves to have their voice heard?

Content Epilogue

24/5/2018 12:17:19 am

Great Article.
Just wanted to say I don't see need for content warnings with subjects such as evidence and proof or crim law, the warning is in the name of the subject. Sure if a lecturer for some odd reason wants to start talking about a rape case in a contracts class I can see the need for a warning , but come on, how surprised and unprepared could you possibly be when it's brought up in crim law.

We don't provide movie ratings at the end of each commercial break..

Nevertheless I do understand that due to personal experiences different people may be sensitive to such material and may struggle, unfortunately for these people a content warning isn't going to solve or help their problems. Instead I think at the end of the subject time should be dedicated to acknowledging that the issues discussed are very real world issues and reference resources and services that people can access if they find themselves in such situations or recovering from them. This I believe would be by far more helpful.

A WARNING FOR Content WARNINGS

Leave a Reply.