Evergreen State College trigger warnings coddle hypersensitive ‘snowflakes’

There is compassion and then there is coddling. And when it comes to trigger warnings, I fear we are pushing an ideology that not only has the chilling effect of stifling speech on college campuses but also won’t be applied consistently.

George Bridges, the President of Evergreen State College in Olympia, bolstered my concerns Tuesday with his op-ed in The Seattle Times that opposed the University of Chicago’s policy on trigger warnings and safe spaces on college campuses.

Superintendent candidate blasts ‘Stranger’ for tokenism, getting it wrong

Bridges describes trigger warnings as things that “can alert students to genuinely distressing content that could otherwise cripple their learning.” Basically, that teachers and professors should warn students any time they might broach a controversial subject, including ones that might challenge the student’s narrow worldview.

But here’s my question: Where is the bar for a trigger being warningable? We reached out to Bridges and his office refused to explain to us. There’s reason behind his refusal: if he gets into specifics, it’ll out his true intent.

In the Times he writes:

Imagine a rape survivor entering a class in which sexual violence is the subject of academic debate or a veteran just returning from a combat assignment suffering from acute post-traumatic stress syndrome, anxiety or depression in a classroom where accounts of a war are disputed. These students can make critically important contributions to their classrooms, but if we refuse to acknowledge that they also have unique barriers to participating in that discussion, we send the message that they are not welcome.

The two groups of people (rape victims and veterans) are often exploited by both sides of the aisle to make points just like this. Don’t fall for that tactic. This is not about protecting rape victims or veterans living with PTSD. This is about pushing ideology and coddling snowflakes who get offended by any content they disagree with or that challenges them. This seems to be unique among the social justice warriors as a way to reinforce their own viewpoints. It’s about stifling speech in the name of protecting someone from being harmed.

So what is a trigger warning? It certainly has a negative connotation but it’s also most certainly a tactic for using political correctness to shut down opposing viewpoints. As Jonathan Chait, a liberal, put in a fantastic New York Magazine article: “Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate.” Basically, this is a political strategy.

To my point: Do you think they would give a trigger warning to Christian students before reading a book that has gay people in it? Or a gay couple? Some students might feel more comfortable only talking about traditional marriage or heterosexual relationships. They might feel triggered by this content.

How about issuing trigger warnings to the white kids in class after reading about culture appropriation? You know, little Jacob over there who is a fan of Kanye, we don’t want to make him feel bad for listening to a black rapper. Does he get a trigger warning?

No. And you know why? Because this isn’t about helping students who have a different worldview than progressive activists in the classroom. And let’s be clear: those trigger warnings would be absurd; just as absurd as a trigger warning for content that discusses privilege and colonialism. Those are triggers? Too bad.

What trigger warnings actually do is force professors to stray from content and material from books, articles, magazines – from whatever – that might offend some college snowflake who will file a complaint because they’re reading about a white protagonist in a novel. What you’ll find is that good professors decide that it’s not worth the hassle of introducing material some hypersensitive student will complain about.

Here’s another piece from Bridges’ op-ed. Safe spaces and trigger warning advocates often reject the notion that this is about coddling, but Bridges makes it clear that’s not the case.

… students face personal challenges that many in previous generations didn’t. Many are reluctant to engage faculty and staff with questions or arguments out of fear of failure or rejection.

Fear of rejection? You mean, these students don’t want to be told that they’re wrong, nor do they want to be challenged. They don’t want anything except positive reinforcement of the beliefs, principles and ideas they came to college having. Rejection sucks, but it’s also part of life. Failure is how you grow. Character is developed every time we fail, you become smarter and more engaged when challenged, and we are creating a bunch of kids who don’t understand this. They don’t know how to fail; what to do following failure, how to cope, react, pick themselves up after failure. That leads to a group of people who fear rejection.

Maybe they’d be less fearful of rejection and failure if you treated them like adults?

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz