I was asked for my opinion regarding this article about whether or not trigger warnings should be added to school syllabi (you can read that here http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/05/29/essay-faculty-members-about-why-they-will-not-use-trigger-warnings#ixzz33dKK46xn). This is my opinion.
First, I would like to point out that just because some of the faculty members who wrote this might have experienced some of the traumatic events that have galvanized this dialogue does not mean that they own this issue or that they are entitled to speak on behalf of all trauma survivors, many of whom might react to the same event differently.
I'm getting mixed messages. The authors acknowledge time and time again that they are not equipped to deal with psychiatric episodes, while simultaneously defending their right to retain full control of jobs that might directly involve re-traumatizing students. I'm not at all saying that the material taught in the classroom is inherently problematic; I agree that, for many, there is a valuable learning experience at the heart of this. But if you think you can be off of the hook, and that your personal preferences are going to act as some kind of gatekeeper that denies entry to the full blown manifestation of traumatic aftermath, don't teach. You can't avoid this shit by skipping out on trigger warnings because trigger warnings aren't reeeeally the issue at hand here.
You emphasize the importance of enhancing and expanding institutional support for students with mental health issues. But the classroom is part of the institution.
"PTSD is a disability; as with all disabilities, students and faculty deserve to have effective resources provided by independent campus offices that handle documentation, certification, and accommodation plans rather than by faculty proceeding on an ad hoc basis."
No. Don't you dare say "as with all disabilities" because PTSD is not like all disabilities. It is a psychiatric disability. And what I'm hearing is typical: you don't want to deal with mental health issues. You don't want to see them. You might even have them yourself, but it's still not appropriate to bring them into the classroom. It's too intense. It's not your responsibility. And that is the real issue here.
Think of PTSD as an allergy. Something specific triggers a negative reaction in an individual. There is overlap in physical symptoms and cognitive components including fear, even terror, over the possibility of death. Throats close off, extremities tingle. Pins and needles rain all over the body.
Parents of children with allergies in public schools have the right to tell teachers not to bring a certain food or item into the classroom. My mom did that for my brother every single year of elementary school because he had severe food allergies that would induce anaphylaxis. Letters were sent home to every parent. All kinds of special arrangements were made. Most of the teachers were happy to go out of their way for my brother...because it was a part of their job. It was a part of teaching to make sure that they did not trigger a negative, dangerous, or even deadly reaction in his youthful, learning body.
Yes, triggers are numerous and unpredictable. So are food allergies, but the common ones are still listed on the label in bold print and someone is held accountable for providing them.
You acknowledge that you expose students to visceral and upsetting material on a consistent basis. But dealing with the aftermath is a responsibility better left for disability services and not you?
The Sanctuary Model, which is a trauma-informed, evidence based approach to treating people who have experienced trauma is predicated on the understanding that trauma is pervasive in the human condition. Its tenets have application in schools and provide a method for changing an organizational culture. Procedures to avoid retraumatization includes staff training, awareness, and competency.
Quite frankly, if faculty is as ill-equipped to deal with trauma as you say, maybe you shouldn't be teaching about it without a little extra training.
At the same time, the Sanctuary Model heavily emphasizes survivor involvement, rights, and empowerment, with clients being responsible for much of their own care, and fewer institutional barriers that isolate clients as well as staff.
If you're worried about silencing faculty members, think about the students with PTSD who now know that you don't want to SEE them or their reality, that you don't want to deal with it. Perhaps trigger warnings would not only empower students and encourage them to be in charge of their own psychiatric well being, but they would also lead to fewer institutional barriers that isolate students FROM staff. It sounds like what you all need is a catalyst to collaborate, to listen to each other. You're going to need it.
Because Disability Services often leaves it to the discretion of the professor to decide how to deal with students who are unable to confront the course material. You already have the power, and that includes the power to deny a student with PTSD the accommodations that they need to successfully complete the course. And yet, faculty can't do this, and faculty can't do that.
So my question for you is this: Are you going to ask your students to leave their body casts at the door, or just the ones you can't see?
P.S. What's up with point number nine? You know how many people I've heard say that rape culture is no longer a thing? That racism is no longer a thing? Please, if anything, a trigger warning might remind people that this shit is real.
No comments:
Post a Comment