Last week, incoming freshmen to the University of Chicago received a welcome letter declaring that the school would not promote trigger warnings, cancel potentially controversial speakers or condone safe spaces. The University of Chicago turned to the principles of freedom of speech and intellectual curiosity to justify this statement, but it was met with significant criticism. According to an Aug. 26 New York Times article, the University of Chicago student body president, Eric Holmberg, called the letter “an effort to frame any sort of activism on campus as anti-free-speech” and remarked that the letter perpetuated a misunderstanding of trigger warnings and a stereotype of “coddled millennials.” How do you feel about the University of Chicago’s letter, and do you believe that trigger warnings and safe spaces are mutually exclusive to free speech and intellectual curiosity?

Gabriel Del Carmen ’19

The general misunderstanding about safe spaces and trigger warnings — and one that I’m actually rather surprised manifested itself at the administrative level — is that they are inherently antithetical to freedom of speech. “PC culture gone awry.” Promoting a safe environment for students to express their opinions without fear of backlash accomplishes the exact opposite of inhibiting freedom of speech. What it truly does is create an environment that is conducive to freedom of expression because of the absence of fear of judgement. Trigger warnings, likewise, grant students the ability to feel comfortable in a space of learning, enabling them to learn without fear that an unknown or incredibly emotionally sensitive. I believe the University of Chicago’s decision stems from a place of holistic ignorance, and I truly hope the administration re-evaluates their policy.

Gabriel Del Carmen ’19 is the president of Active Minds and a member of the Brandeis Academic Debate and Speech Society. He also writes for The Hoot.

Ben Feshbach ’19

Be they graphic, grotesque, hyper-sexualixed and/or filled with cursing, some R-rated movies are really excellent pieces of work. When done in a thoughtful manner, the inclusion of edgier imagery and dialogue can help contextualize the emotional or political narrative of a movie, thereby improving the moviegoer’s overall experience. In those cases, the use of graphic language and/or imagery is often necessary in order to convey the intended message — but that doesn’t mean MPAA warnings at the beginning of movies aren’t necessary, too, because some people may find that sort of material too upsetting, and many others simply like to prepare themselves for what they might see and hear. I view trigger warnings in the same light: some topics require proper discussion, and experts in such topics ☺— professors — should have the freedom to decide when such language and ideas must be used and discussed. But if we want to make sure that students from all backgrounds feel welcome in such discussions, we need to give all students the opportunity to prepare themselves for difficult topics. I don’t think trigger warnings constitute a harm to free speech so much as they make speech more thoughtful.

Ben Feshbach ’19 is a member of Brandeis Democrats. He is also a member of Brandeis Academic Debate and Speech Society.

Danielle Rock ’18

Those in charge at the University of Chicago pretend to fight “coddled millennials” to disguise their own bigotry. By getting rid of safe spaces, they are saying that minority groups don’t deserve a space, safe from those who discriminate against them. By regarding trigger warnings as unnecessary, they are saying that survivors of trauma should be forced to relive those experiences without warning, at any given time at their institution. The university used the free-speech argument as many aggressors do in this country. But, at what point does somebody’s bigoted “free speech” encroach on another’s right to pursue life, liberty and happiness? How can they live when they are murdered, by those who threaten them under the guise of free speech before acting? How are they free when they constantly inhabit hostile spaces? How can trauma survivors find happiness when they are forced to relive the event unexpectedly without trigger warnings?

Danielle Rock ’18 is a member of Active Minds.

Michael Musto ’17

The University of Chicago’s decision to take a stand and declare that it will not promote trigger warnings and speaker dis-invitations is a welcome development. The university’s role is to expose students to new ways of thinking and prepare them for the real world post-grad. What better way to do this than to expose students to what they will face in the real world? Outside of the college bubble, students will be exposed to different viewpoints. They will have to interact with people when they may not agree with or even like. Should they be conditioned to retreat to a “safe space” when they hear ideas or people they do not like or approve of? The student body president remarked that the university’s stance perpetuated a misunderstanding of trigger warnings and a stereotype of “coddled millennials.” What better way to prove this wrong than to declare that you are for free and open discourse?

Michael Musto ’17 is the vice president of Brandeis Conservatives.

Sara Gelles-Watnick ’17

Trigger warnings (TWs) aren’t related to the issues of censorship or intellectual curiosity. TWs are used as a self-care mechanism so individuals who suffer from chronic trauma-induced mental illnesses (i.e. dissociative disorders, PTSD, anxiety) can attempt to avoid having severe, debilitating symptoms of their disease. Hopefully, by avoiding a triggering stimulus that would incapacitate them, an individual would be able to avoid a traumatic incident that could potentially have long-lasting effects on their mental health. Perhaps UChicago’s President does not understand what purpose TWs serve, or he believes that they are used inappropriately. TWs are purely health related. Mental health shouldn’t be sacrificed for people who misinterpret or misuse TWs. Don’t let the lack of others’ understanding prevent progress, but rather educate yourself and others so progress can occur.

Sara Gelles-Watnick ’17 is a co-founder of Active Minds. She is also on the Student Union’s Brandeis Counseling Center advisory board.

Sarah Lipitz ’17

I think there is a massive difference between the “coddled millennials” we imagine and those who actually benefit from trigger warnings and safe spaces. Yes, freedom of speech is incredibly important and yes, it means exploring topics and ideas that may make you uncomfortable. But safe spaces give people room to explore those controversial and uncomfortable ideas. To me, safe spaces are places like a professor’s office, the BCC or a friend’s house — spaces where I feel supported, respected and can speak my mind freely, utilizing the same freedoms the University of Chicago is trying so desperately to protect. For example, a professor would probably warn about physically intensive work so someone with a disability could prepare; a professor could also warn a class about a reading about rape so someone with a history of sexual assault could prepare. To me, trigger warnings and safe spaces actually foster intellectual curiosity and freedom.

Sarah Lipitz ’17 is the treasurer of Active Minds.