In the New York Times article “Why I use trigger warnings” by Professor Kate Manne, the author justifies

using trigger warnings by arguing that, it helps students to prepare themselves to manage their
reactions. I agree with her reasoning because I believe college is a place where each student’s focus and
engagement, matters for their academic success. And if triggered reactions inhibit individuals from class
activities, they should be given the opportunity to prepare for it. According to the author, flagging
content helps those that are affected to have a rational reflection without having an involuntary
unpleasant reaction. As we all know, people invest hard earned money into college for their education,
so why not live and let live. I wholeheartedly agree on the author’s decision to provide trigger warnings
as means to accommodate every student, as the warnings wouldn’t affect another student’s education
negatively. Another reason why she includes trigger warnings is to help sensitize the rest of the class
that certain classmates might be sensitive towards the class material. In my opinion, this is another no-
brainer as molding respectful citizens for society is another primary goal of college education.

Discussing further, Professor Manne acknowledges the existing criticism of trigger warnings. She agrees
that students need to engage rationally with all kinds of ideas, arguments and views for their intellectual
growth. According to the article, some parties wish to attempt exposure therapy on students suffering
from traumatic experiences. Just as Professor Manne, I too believe any avenue of therapy should be left
to trained professionals. Furthermore, I think one should be allowed to make a conscience decision of
seeking professional therapeutic assistance rather than receiving unsolicited therapy through a college
class. Intrigued by the topic, I dove into a rabbit hole of referenced articles. Apart from the criticism that
Professor Manne highlights from the article of The Atlantic, there is a few compelling arguments put
forth by them; censorship of content to accommodate triggers. According to article from The New
Yorker cited by Mr. Lukianoff and Professor Haidt, some Harvard law students are reluctant to discuss
the laws of sexual violence. While I don’t agree on their protest on trigger warnings, I do believe that
course literature or topics to be debated in class should not be censored based on triggers. I advocate
enabling everyone’s rational engagement through trigger warnings. However, it shouldn’t hinder
someone else’s education through censorship.