I don’t think anybody has got a problem with trigger warnings[sup]1[/sup] for graphic content. If I were a film studies professor and I had decided to show a film like, say, Irreversible in one of my lectures, I would definitely warn students that it contains extremely graphic and disturbing material.
The problem here, isn’t with trigger warnings on graphic material, it’s with trigger warnings on potentially upsetting ideas. That’s a whole different thing altogether, and frankly it should be opposed at every turn. Part of the point of going to college is to expose yourself to new ideas, even though they might be potentially upsetting. If you don’t think you can handle that, you really shouldn’t be going to college.
Take the case linked to in the OP, for instance. Students set up a ridiculous ‘panic room’, not for students who might be triggered by graphic depictions of rape, but for students who might be “triggered” by the mere suggestion that popular fears about ‘rape culture’ are overblown. Fuck that.
As an aside, speaking as someone who has struggled with very severe panic disorder for nearly fifteen years, I personally believe that the ever increasing ubiquity of trigger warnings does more harm than good. Obviously, some students have been through traumas which make it very difficult for them to deal with graphic depictions of certain subjects, and some students are just plain fragile. For those people, trigger warnings may be helpful, but only as a temporary measure. Over the long term, all trigger warnings do is promote avoidance not healing. And as anyone with panic disorder can tell you, all avoidance offers is a short term alleviation of symptoms. It never really helps.
Recently, in England, the National Union of Students endorsed a measure to forbid (and I swear I’m not making this up) applause at lectures. The “logic” behind this was that some students may find the noise of people clapping their hands to be “triggering”. Instead, they suggest students show their approval with “non threatening ‘Jazz hands’”. Now, even if some students really are “triggered” by something as benign as a round of applause, accommodating them with trigger warnings and jazz hands is the worst thing you can do. People who are that easily disturbed need therapy. Indulging them just makes it easier for them to pursue avoidance strategies rather than real treatment.
And another thing; if we allow this precedent to continue unopposed, if we mandate that mere ideas warrant “trigger warnings”, how long will it be until students demand trigger warnings on things that they really should be okay with? Should books like ‘The buddha of Suburbia’ or ‘Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit’ come with trigger warnings for the benefit of conservative Christian and Muslim students who find “the gay lifestyle” triggering? I mean, if the only metric is ‘Will X upset some students?’ then I can’t see a logical reason for denying them? At some point, we just need to say ‘Toughen the fuck up or go home’. Frankly, if the case in the OP is anything to go by, it looks like we’re already there.
[sup]1 - That said, I don’t really like the term ‘trigger warning’. The use of the word ‘trigger’ suggests vulnerable students are little more than Pavlovian dogs with no control over their reactions. It robs them of agency. “Content warning” might be a little more diplomatic.[/sup]