NEW YORK, NY April 30 (DPI) – The NYT earlier this month reported that Cornell University has “pushed back” against the use of trigger warnings for “upsetting educational materials.”

The NYT report – it was not packaged as an Op-Ed – said that the matter of “trigger warnings” on campus amounted to a generational dispute over what exactly is free speech:

To some, the conflict illustrates a stark divide in how different generations define free speech and how much value they place on its absolute protection, especially at a time of increased sensitivity toward mental health concerns.

It went on to conflate another issue – hosting speakers with views that students disagree with – as part of the broader campus debate of free speech, and what the left views as the growing threat to students’ mental health.

Readers, though, who wrote more than 2,000 comments attached to the report, suggested that the problem is not with trigger warnings or mean speakers, but with students being unable to cope with ideas they disagree with.

Nearly all the most popular comments were unsympathetic to the view that trigger warnings helped protect students’ mental health. The top comments, with the last comment among the top with 400 recommended:

Students should be prepared to confront classroom material that is challenging, sometimes disquieting. The classroom should be a safe space insofar as students are protected from physical harm, but safety should not apply to how material impacts a student, adversely or otherwise. In fact, that’s a key tenet of college itself–learning new things and unlocking new understanding about yourself.

Good for the Cornell administrators for pushing back against trigger warnings. One of the most valuable components of the higher education experience is be challenged – intellectually, morally, and yes, emotionally. It can be very uncomfortable, but life is often uncomfortable. How can a still developing mind understand and come to grips with historic and current events if they’re sheltered from these realities? How can someone develop cogent and rational rebuttals unless they hear or read an alternate opinion? And on a more practical level, college students can easily research a book or the readings outlined in a syllabus and make their own decisions about whether they can handle what’s there.

Life does not come with trigger warnings. At university level, students should be aware that they will be repeatedly exposed to unpleasant, frightening, shocking or triggering material. That’s part of learning new, important things about the world. At the same time, it is also important that counseling support be easily available and encouraged for any who need it. Avoidance of triggers is often a symptom of trauma, not a treatment.

It’s about time an administrator with spine stood their ground and behaved as a leader, instead of capitulating to the culture of fragility.

This is the end result of helicopter parenting and university coddling – students who are wholly unable to maneuver the complex moral, ethical and interpersonal issues the modern world presents to them. They’re incapable of introspection and lack any insight into their poor judgment. “Trigger warnings” in liberal colleges, book bannings in conservative communities. Our culture is not well and I’m concerned about students will navigate the post-graduate world, including employment scenarios.

Every single one of the following is an actual trigger warning I have seen (in no particular order): Eating disorders, pregnancy, Christianity, politics, unemployment, cancer, infertility, pet death or illness, hostile/toxic work environment, swearing, COVID, Christmas, death, binge eating, mental illness, family drama, transphobia, miscarriage, divorce, emetophobia, suicide, anxiety, depression, parental illness, financial struggles, alcoholism, car accident. I could go on, but you get the drift. Where does it end? And who gets to decide who’s trigger warrants a warning and who’s doesn’t? It’s impossible and ridiculous.