Here's a quote, from https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9601 :
> “At the University of Chicago, we insist that all faculty and students are free to debate, disagree, and argue, without fear of being silenced,” Dean of Students Dr. John (Jay) Ellison wrote in a letter welcoming incoming freshmen to campus.
You'll read the 2021 letter doesn't use the term "safe space", unlike in 2020 (where quoting https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/university-chicago-we... ):
> Ellison wrote, "we do not support so-called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own."
See, the thing is, a "safe space" isn't about "retreat[ing] from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own", it's about giving people a place to speak out 'without fear of being silenced'.
That misunderstanding may have lead to the removal of "safe spaces" from this year's letter.
However, the trigger warning you've described isn't that useful.
Consider one case I read about - a college biology teacher teaching a developmental biology course. Part of that course includes showing photos of deformed human fetuses. He gives a warning because that's traumatic to some people.
For example, there may be a student who experienced a miscarriage due to a birth defect, and the emotions may still too raw to be handled without at least some preparation. Warnings give preparation.
But does a single warning, when entering college, really provide reasonable preparation for the entire four or so years? No.
Second, some people are really close to the topic already. The essay describes an essay about the Hungarian Holocaust, where the professor asks "How can I teach the Holocaust without unsettling my students?"
What about those students who are already unsettled? I remember the episode of "Who Do You Think You Are?" when Stephen Fry learns more about his family who died in the Holocaust. Even though he knows they died in the death camps, he still cries when reading details, like at https://youtu.be/6t9IqViVy9I?t=142.
A student who comes from a family which survived the Holocaust, where stories are may still be alive and close, might be prepared for discussion, but not images.
In both my examples, it's the people who are most closely involved with the materials who are most likely to be traumatized without preparation.
But the Guardian article doesn't explain why the student felt traumatized and distressed, or what warnings the teacher actually gave. It only implied that the students should be able to accept any relevant material, and without any warning or emotional consequences.
Which doesn't seem fair or reasonable.
Third, such a warning as you propose shouldn't apply to out-of-context history. Certainly no one expects pictures of the Holocaust as part of a math course.
Lastly, in the analogy with medical consent, it's supposed to be informed consent. Medical consent isn't simply "I acknowledge the doctor says something is wrong and I accept any consequences of treatment." And teaching is the process of becoming informed, giving a bootstrap situation.
“Protecting” students from “disturbing” ideas is an act of censorship in the first place. The choices for academics who don’t agree with this censorship are simple - to quit their job or to secure themselves by not covering some topics. Or probably to be fired (and publicly lashed) for standing their ground - as we have seen has happened many times already.
The whole situation is a total disaster and absolute disgrace for the modern educational system. Being traumatized is a part of being human. It’s a part of a life of an adult. It is a good thing, if one gets these traumas in a precise, measured and indirect way - from books and lectures. It’s a process of education. If those students are not ready for that, maybe they made a mistake to become students in the first place?
It also hasn't really aged well. I remember this criticism was far more prominent a few years back, including on HN.
What happened since? Trigger warning were renamed "CN", for "content note", I believe. We also got ourselves some actual problems, so nobody cares about these things anymore.
Popular perception of these warnings also became less scandalised with their increasing popularity: first, because people note that the abundance of "CNs" they come across mean precisely the opposite of what was feared: it's a sign that people aren't censoring themselves, but instead using a commonly accepted practice to mitigate any possible negative effects without the need to self-censor.
And here's the second misunderstanding: "CNs" aren't really meant to make people leave the room or not read the book, and the examples from these articles were pretty rare back then and are almost unheard of now.
They are, instead, an acknowledgement that I, the speaker, realise that this may be a sensitive topic for you. By flagging this up-front, I show that harming you is not my intention, and that I will be supportive if any issue arises.
This understanding defuses the situation. Because it's not usually texts about the Holocaust that are traumatising for jews. It's people using those texts and that history to hurt them anew.
The attitude that "some things are not to be discussed/mentioned" is akin to religious dogma, more at home in the European Dark Ages than the 21st century.
