I, as discussed in the previous essay on this subject, believe students have a right to know the contents of a class in advance and that I am, as a professor, bound by the requirements of civility and compassion. Professors should inform students about potentially upsetting material in their classes. That said, I have some concerns about the imposition of guidance upon faculty. I am especially concerned when the state imposes ideological mandates forbidding and requiring content; this goes far beyond any imposition of trigger warning requirements.
One concern is that guidance might strike some as based on what was called “politically correct” ideology. Nowadays the right would call it “woke”, although that terms seems to have no clear meaning to them beyond denoting what they dislike. While claims about the dominance of wokeness in academics are overblown, guides that appear based on ideology could be used to criticize the academy. That said, many states (such as my adopted state of Florida) mandate ideological content in GENED classes in state colleges.
An obvious counter is to contend that such guides are not politically correct impositions and to see them as such would be overblown suspicion. Another obvious counter is that such guidance is ideologically neutral and merely aims at protecting students from trauma. Even if trigger warnings were imposed by a university, this is radically different from imposed or forbidden ideological content. A third counter is that the classroom is a suitable place for the imposition of ideology onto a captive audience; the fight in some states could be seen as being over who gets to impose their ideology.
While this might seem naïve, I think that the classroom should not serve as a place of ideological indoctrination, even when the ideology is my own. As a philosopher, my objective is to teach students how to think and not to preach to them. That said, someone might say it is a contradiction to instill the principles of academic inquiry and learning while maintaining that ideologies should not be imposed in the classroom. After all, it might be argued that such things as honesty, respect, reason, and intellectual curiosity are ideological in nature.
A second concern is that while guiding faculty about trigger warnings is not imposing a restriction on academic freedom it does do at least two negative things. One is that it makes a value judgment about the material and implies that such material is not suitable for all students. As such, it seems to suggest that faculty should, perhaps, not include it. Another is that it is the first trickle in what might grow into a stream that erodes academic freedom. To lay out the progression, it is not unreasonable to see guidelines gradually evolve into suggestions which then, over a few years, become actual restrictions. As such, it seems sensible to stop the trickle well before the possible flood.
The obvious reply to this concern is that it the feared evolution might never take place—that is, there would be no expansion from guidance to “ism based” restrictions on what faculty are permitted to include. This is a reasonable point in that to simply assume that the slide must be inevitable would be to fall into a slippery slope fallacy. That said, there does seem to be a clear and reasonable path from guidance to actual restriction and thus this is still a matter of legitimate concern.
While my old concern was with an imposition from “the left” what has occurred under Republican rule is an ideological imposition from the right, including weaponizing federal funding to compel universities to comply with an ideology. While some claim the right is being hypocritical given their professed love of freedom, one can only properly understand the right once one understands how their concepts differ from the usual meanings of such terms. They do not oppose the imposition of ideologies, in principle. Rather, they oppose what they see as the imposition of what they perceive as an ideology other than their own.
A third point of concern is a practical one, namely that students might exploit trigger warnings s. As some examples, students might use trigger warnings as an excuse to skip classes, avoid work, or as a way to get a higher grade (based on an appeal to emotional trauma). It would be difficult to prove that a student was exploiting trigger warnings. There is also the concern since trigger sensitivity is linked to various –isms a professor who decided to question a student’s triggers could find themselves accused of various –isms (such as sexism or racism). Professors also generally prefer not to delve too deeply into the emotional issues of students—we are, after all, generally not trained therapists or counselors and professionalism requires a certain emotional distance.
One objection is that students would not exploit such trigger warnings. The obvious counter is that some certainly would. While not a trigger warning case, the 2025 University of Oklahoma essay controversy shows how a student could exploit accusations of -isms. Another objection is that a system could be created to verify triggers to ensure that excuses are legitimate. While this would be possible, this would entail more bureaucracy and still would not do much to deter exploitation.
A third objection is that allowing some students to exploit the system is an acceptable price to pay to allow students to avoid triggering material. This might be true—although it does raise the question of whether avoiding triggering material is a legitimate reason to miss class, etc.
It could also be countered that the avoidance of trigger material would not provide a legitimate excuse for missing class, avoiding certain coursework, etc. While this is possible, one might wonder about the value of trigger warnings—that is, there would seem to be something odd in acknowledging that something is potentially traumatic enough that people must be warned while also holding that students are not excused if they elect to avoid the potential trauma. It could be countered that the purpose of the warning is not to allow avoidance but to allow students the chance to be prepared for the incoming trauma. This could be good enough, although it does invite a debate about the value of trigger warnings.
In closing, I do agree that students should be informed about course content and that a professor should be polite and compassionate about letting students know about potentially traumatic material. However, I do have concerns about administrators imposing guidelines and mandating trigger warnings. I have far greater concerns about the ideological impositions of the state, which does illustrate how the “left” and “right” differ in the context of academics in the United States.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.