Political correctness, trigger warnings and what to do about them

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines political correctness as “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.” Dictionary.com defines trigger warnings as, “a stated warning that the content of a text, video, etc., may upset or offend some people, especially those who have previously experienced a related trauma.” Both political correctness and trigger warnings are seen as threatening to the educational environment across the U.S. by keeping students and faculty from discussing difficult topics.

Most university- level students have heard the term political correctness, or PC, at least once. It usually precedes a sensitive topic discussed in a class and generally comes with a “trigger warning.” This is to alert students that the following topic that follows may be difficult to discuss and is an invitation to turn away or leave the classroom. This practice seems harmless enough, but researchers have noted it may do more harm than good.

“As a psychiatrist, I nonetheless have to question whether trigger warnings are in… students’ best interests,” said Sarah Roff, fourth-year resident of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington Medical Center. She continues, “One of the cardinal symptoms of PTSD is avoidance, which can become the most impairing symptom of all.”

This raises interesting questions about trigger warnings and political correctness, because Roff notes that these tendencies can prevent sufferers from seeking the help they need. Rather than issuing trigger warnings, she suggests increased training for faculty and students on available resources for peers who have suffered trauma. She says this will have a better effect than, “trying to insulate them from triggers.”

So where does political correctness fit in? Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights, Johnathan Haidt, social psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at NYU-Stern School of Business, say that, “trigger warnings are sometimes demanded for a long list of ideas and attitudes that some students find politically offensive, in the name of preventing other students from being harmed.”

“Trigger warnings” seem innocent enough, but Lukianoff and Haidt say that the solution of avoiding past traumatic experiences is “misguided.” They point out that this practice is not conducive to overcoming trauma and healing from it. Instead, classrooms should be the safe space for students to habituate themselves to situations that are uncomfortable or traumatic as this will aid in managing life outside of school.

Roff says, “One of my biggest concerns about trigger warnings is that they will apply not just to those who have experienced trauma, but to all students, creating an atmosphere in which they are encouraged to believe that there is something dangerous or damaging about discussing difficult aspects of our history.”

Their statements seem harsh, but the reality is that many do not know all of the implications of PC and trigger warnings. Something that is viewed as harmless now, if left unchecked, may end up causing more harm than it prevents. Democracy is not the only thing at stake in the age of PC; the quality of our education is as well.