Because the issue is, first, that it should really go without saying that upsetting and potentially triggering topics will be covered by virtue of the course description. Secondly, it’s that too many students are, as has been pointed out in this thread by professors, using trigger warnings as an excuse to get out of…

Um. You should not EVER need to be warned that spiders might appear in a biology textbook. Just like you shouldn’t need to be warned that topics of murder, violence, genocide, rape, etc., will come up in a history course. That’s the point. If you enroll in a biology class that will cover bugs, you don’t need a warning…

That’s kind of a crap comparison, because a student does have the right to have a KKK banner. An individual’s dorm is their private space, not a safe haven for other students.

But what exactly is the likelihood of such? If you take a course in history, sociology, psychology, or law, for instance, and genuinely don’t consider that upsetting and disturbing topics will come up, you are a fool. Even in a lit class, you should expect that there could be unpleasant topics. Even where it isn’t…

But you can abide sexist language passing for civil discourse. Nice.

On the contrary, it is. That is exactly the kind of safe space and trigger warning that the University of Chicago has rejected; they’re actually quite clear on that. And that IS what students are demanding.

There is a time and place for safe spaces and trigger warnings, but most assuredly not at universities. It is the individual’s responsibility to know what their triggers are and whether they are likely to *be* triggered in a given situation. If you take a history class, you should already know ahead of time that there…