A follow-up/rebuttal in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/opinion/sunday/why-i-use-trigger-warnings.htmlI like some of the top-rated comments on this one. If only
some triggers matter, then what does that say to those unfortunate enough to have unusual PTSD triggers? It's pretty clear that the two main causes of PTSD encompass a fairly large subset of college students-- combat veterans and rape or domestic abuse victims. As many as 20-40% of those people may have had, or currently have, some PTSD.
If one of them finds
clowns as distressing as another finds, say, reminders of gunfire-- doesn't that mean that pretty much everything needs a trigger warning?
If it doesn't mean that, then it
does mean that we've chosen to "other" people who have uncommon triggers-- I do have a problem with that. It's like making disabled parking ONLY available for those with some mobility-limitations and not for others. Hip or knee replacement? Okay for you, then. Severe osteoarthritis? Nope. ALS? Not for you either. Wheelchair? Yes, here's your placard.
On some level, this kind of thing constitutes a violation of disability law, even-- because PTSD, the real, diagnosed sort, is a
real condition that really impacts life's major activities, and it really constitutes an impairment that can and is accommodated like any other impairment that is severe or pervasive enough to limit access. Offering the accommodation "just in case" is like trying to hand out disability placards at random to anyone that has ever purchased a walking stick, and hoping that one gets it right. This does not follow the
process for granting an accommodation for a very real, and very disabling condition.
That's the real question-- does PTSD LIMIT access? (Yes, for some people, it might).
Also, do trigger warnings ALLOW for access for those affected by PTSD? (COMPLETELY un-studied, so far as I can tell-- and actually, PTSD accommodations are not that uncommon on college campuses, and are, as disability accommodations SHOULD be-- individual and idiosyncratic, created with the input of the affected student and his/her treating professional(s).)
If they do, then do they do so in a way which doesn't alter the fundamental nature of the activity? (This is the
real sticky point. What IS the "fundamental nature" of a course of study, and is it right to second guess the expert who devised it and included shocking, distressing, or controversial material as a part of that course of study?)
I'd argue that all of those questions are wholly reasonable ones here, and that the answers are troubling, to say the least.
SOME triggers are "reasonably common" (only-- apparently not by relying upon actual data, but on "everyone knows" or "well, anyone can understand that..." kinds of anecdotal information), and others not.
The thing about real PTSD though is that it doesn't really care about what everyone thinks is logical. {sigh}
