I read this article a few days ago.

Honestly, I got the impression that the authors did not really understand the purpose of a trigger warning. At some point they say (I'm paraphrasing; sorry for not finding the actual quote), "Every psychologist knows that avoiding things that make you anxious just causes more anxiety."

This is very true in many cases. I used to have a bad driving phobia. I still get nervous sometimes driving, but I mostly overcame it by...driving. The more I drove the easier it got. Avoiding driving made the anxiety worse.

But this is very different from, say, a victim of sexual assault with PTSD wanting a trigger warning in order to avoid a graphic description of rape in a book they are reading for literature class. Do the authors suppose that the student will "get over" their anxiety by having panic attacks or flashbacks caused by something they read in class? Should the student expose themselves to discussion or depictions of rape in order to cure themselves because "avoidance leads to anxiety?" I don't think so.

Or what about someone like me, who would struggle with suicidal ideation for days after I read novels or watched movies in college that depicted suicides? Would reading about more suicides make me less suicidal? I doubt it.

I used to TA at a university as a grad student so I understand how some professors are frustrated. I read a different article once about trigger warnings in law school. The author wondered how law students would be able to learn/discuss sexual assault law if they say they need to sit out classes on the subject for fear of being triggered. I agree there are practical concerns.

Again, I sympathize with faculty feeling like they have to walk on eggshells. At the same time, I don't think anyone is asking to be "coddled."

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk