The most noticeable thing for me in the New York Times editorial...
Campus discussions about trigger warnings have lead to widespread discussion and debate on P.T.S.D., mental health and classroom content.
...is that this person who one would expect to be the finest cream of journalistic crop, to be writing for one of the two pillars of the liberal media, apparently doesn't know when to use "led" instead of "lead".
But focusing on the topic issue, I see "trigger warnings" as another budding branch of Political Correctness. And is thus the censorship rose by any other name.
This part pretty well summed it up:
to slap a blanket warning on a piece of literature is a short step from an effective ban. Who can doubt that professors will self-censor their course material rather than risk collecting too many “triggers?” What college wants to appear insensitive to vulnerable students?
Many academics see the warnings as an attack on free expression, and for good reason: The alerts by their nature single out some content as better or worse than others. They pre-judge course material as dangerous or objectionable, skewing the students’ experience in advance. As with health notices on cigarette packs, the warnings signal that the material is best avoided.
What is traumatic for one person is not traumatic for another. So it's pretty stupid to "protect" everyone from something that only the experience of a very select few would have sensitivity to, based on their personal experiences.
My observation is that far from being traumatized and having to be protected, people with traumatic experiences are
drawn to similar stories.
Rape victims become stronger after their initial experience, give testimonials, and counsel other victims.
Former drug addicts and alcoholics move on with their lives, and I've met former addicts who are now professional drug counselors.
I recently read some comics anthology issues (from Dark Horse, circa 1992) titled HARD LOOKS, adapting stories by Andrew Vachs, who is a lawyer and writer, whose life began with child abuse and foster homes, who became a lawyer specializing in child abuse, and began writing stories about child abuse, both his own and of those he saw professionally. I frankly find his stories unpleasant and disturbing. But he has a huge following, much of it former abuse victims like himself, who apparently find his deeply violent work cathartic to read.
That which does not destroy us makes us stronger.
So I find the notion of coddling people to prevent them from developing that inner strength to be in opposition to common sense.
I can easily see some liberal professor determining that articles by Pat Buchanan or Steven Sailer on the subject of illegal immigration to be "too sensitive" to expose their Hispanic students to in California, Arizona, Texas or Florida. It's just a convenient excuse to selectively omit valid perspective on the cost of illegal immigration.
One presumes that students are at a university because they are normal and healthy adults. And the purpose of a university is academic learning, where students are there to hear all perspectives, not one indoctrinated perspective, that professors subjectively (through their liberal brain filter) deem to be "safe". In point of fact, professors are given tenure so they can't be fired for teaching/proselytizing THEIR OWN sensitive potential-"trigger" views, so they should not be given another tool to arbitrarily weed out material that subjectively offends their sensibilities.
They shouldn't filter out a book with a rape scene, that is not their job. There are campus rape counselors, or an 800-number rape hotline, that are more specifically created for that purpose.