Trigger warnings are not infringing on your right to free speech

A trigger warning is a disclaimer found at the start of a piece of writing or other media, which simply warns the audience that the following may contain potentially distressing and upsetting material for certain demographics. The reception to these warnings are mixed, with some saying it’s overkill. Here’s why they are wrong: 

The University of Chicago recently published an open letter to its incoming first year class about how they do not support the concept of trigger warnings, and that they believe these types of messages hinder the academic process and perpetuate censorship. The supportive cries of the right wing can be heard ringing through the comments section of each news article reporting on this letter. “The social justice warriors are at it again” or “all these millennials just want their hands held, and can’t deal with the real world.” 

photo: triggercast.wordpress.com

Trigger warnings are not censorship, and they are not a way to prevent discussion of controversial topics. They also aren’t a way to hold the hands of the ‘PC’ generation. They are literally just a way to warn people of what’s coming up next- a simple common courtesy. The issue with the trigger warning debate is the wording itself. ‘Trigger warning” has become a loaded term, used in memes and twitter mentions to refute arguments or statements made by certain people in the online community. 

To really understand the concept behind a trigger warning, one must possess empathy, or the ability to put yourself in the figurative shoes of another. While it must be noted that it is impossible to put yourself in the shoes or mindset of someone who has been raped or who suffers from PTSD if you haven’t shared that experience, one can very easily determine that nobody wants to be re-traumatized over something so easily preventable. This is what triggers do: re-traumatize you. It’s relentless, it’s terrifying, and for the most part it is unpreventable. These warnings provide a buffer to individuals who may find certain content painful to watch or be exposed to. 

Another dimension to this debate is that rejecting trigger warnings adds to the stigma of mental illness. It’s basically like saying, “just get over it” or “your mental illness doesn’t matter to me.” Just because it doesn’t affect you, it doesn’t mean you get to decide whether it should exist or not.

Gender inequality in post-secondary and public education

---

The 1970 Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada identified notable gender inequalities in post-secondary education systems. At that time, women made up just 38.6% of all university students. Today, however, the tides have changed – it is men that are the vast minority across undergraduate institutions nation-wide. Just as it was in 1970, this inequality is a serious issue, and one which deserves critical attention. But it just isn’t getting any.

There isn’t a fervent movement fighting for men’s rights as there was for women forty years ago, and because the education gap is an isolated issue of inequality, it tends to be lost amidst the sea of women’s rights issue which permeate the main-stream media. If do we not address the systemic issues in public education that are keeping men from universities, then the underclass of uneducated men that has formed in Canada and the United States will continue to grow.

In an age where the manufacturing sector has all but vanished, allowing such a demographic to develop is especially dangerous. I can only hope that this article will make you realize that gender equality is a two-sided coin and that it will finally begin to shed some light on the plight of young boys in the public education system.

A recent study by Statistics Canada researches, Marc Frenette and Klarka Zemen, set out to explain the gender gap in university participation. The authors noticed that, by age 15, males were lagging behind females in several observable performance metrics. Study habits and parental expectations were chief on the list. The study concluded that, if boys were to pull even with girls in these areas, the gender gap would close by almost 80%.

According to Leonard Sax, an education expert and published scholar, there are a few systemic issues in public education which, if removed, would quickly allow for improvement. Sax specifically mentions the overreliance on medication for attention deficit disorders and an unnecessarily strict emphasis on kindergarten math and reading requirements. Perhaps if, at a younger age, boys were being encouraged to learn through activity rather than being dosed with Ritalin pills, they would enjoy being at school a little more. Of course, as Sax points out, the soft sexism of low expectations is also an issue. The only way to raise parental expectations is to combat the misguided attitude that girls are naturally smarter than boys (an attitude that has grown over the last few decades).

Unfortunately, Sax’s message has been undermined by those who misrepresent the gender equality movement and assume that to be “pro-boy” is to be “anti-girl”. These people propagate the dangerous illusion that women are unequivocally oppressed and men are always the oppressors. I can only hope that, in the end, critical thought and objectivity will win out against these misguided individuals.

In Response to "In Response to Party Culture"

As most of you have probably heard, Maclean’s magazine recently rated StFX as the “#1 Party School in Canada”.

I picked up the last issue of the Xavarian Weekly hoping to get some varied, clear, and concise thoughts and opinions on our newly achieved honour. Instead, there was only one piece that denied the accuracy of the survey, then conceded to it, accused the faculty of conspiracy and the school as having “a problem”, debated StFX’s image without giving much of an opinion, and finally called for an academic revolution within the liberal arts faculty to regain its prominence over “practical degrees” such as business and nursing.

I hope I wasn’t the only one left scratching my head at this.

I appreciate the attempt to resurrect the extinguished glory days of StFX liberal arts program (I’m an arts student myself), but it is simply wishful thinking. StFX will never be what it was, nor will any other university. The author does admit it is a product of “the flow of the times”, and he is absolutely correct. The university scene is evolving.  People want more than an education from post-secondary institutions. There is a cry for an all-encompassing experience as well as the guarantee of job certainty in today’s turbulent employment market. You can’t blame StFX for changing with the times, and if you don’t like it you can go “invest” yourself in a different university. 

Obviously, I think there were a few issues left unaddressed by the latest article, and wish to clarify, inform, and give you my opinion on what it means to be the “#1 Party School in Canada”.

Under normal circumstances, national recognition of any type would be warmly welcomed by the student body, faculty, and staff with humility and pride, but this news seems to elicit a mixed reaction from the Xaverian community. 

There are people who deny it. They ardently swear StFX isn’t any worse than any other university and that our academics mean more to us than you’d think.

There are those who love it. They will tell you StFX has way more and way better parties than any other school across the country, which is probably true. 

There are those who will tell you, yes, partying is part of StFX, but it’s not all of StFX. Look at our sports teams and our academics. We are so much more than just a party school. This is the message sent by Kent Macdonald in the “We are StFX” video posted to Youtube two weeks after being nominated top party school. 

There are alumni who hate to see their alma mater be slapped with such a title, and there are other alumni who concede to it without much argument. As the author of the previous article mentioned, “Came for the party, stayed for the ring” is not a new expression.  

In my opinion, all these reactions boil down to the same thing: people trying to control StFX’s image. But if there’s anything I’ve learned, there are some things that are out of your control. Yes, we are the top party school. But I don’t think we should flout it, flaunt it, or attempt to assimilate it with the rest of our identity any more than anything else. 

Ultimately, this news in no way changes my experience at StFX. 

Some say, but what about my academic/professional future? How will this “party image” affect the value of my degree? My response to those people is that you were the one to decide to come to StFX. This isn’t the first time we’ve been ranked amongst the best party schools by Maclean’s, so unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past fifteen years, you can’t deny knowing what you’ve gotten yourself into. 

In the end, you came to StFX for a reason. Whether you came for the all-encompassing experience and a practical degree or for the pursuit of higher learning and top-notch professors, you will have the chance to experience all of these things before graduating. And that’s what I think the most valuable part of the StFX experience is - it’s having the choice to be a part of all these things that make StFX great. 

Call Me What You Want

You might be an asshole, but I’m not so sensitive

A two part series. 

I have had the privilege to ring in the New Year with countless forums, discussions, and conference presentations based on the power of language and the potential for oppression via words. Although many conversations entailed the necessary eradication (or potential for re-empowerment) of racially driven, sexist, culturally insensitive terminology, the most common word presented as a topic for debate was slut. 

Slut, in its literal sense, refers to an individual who indulges in the pleasure of sex with varying partners on a frequent basis. Although currently its definition is often ignored when used, there is no doubt its initial introduction was grounded in a gender hierarchy, favouring the decisions of men. However, words and their use evolve, and the extent to which we give them power among a growingly hypersensitive bubble need to as well.

Call me a slut. The word ‘slut’ has grown to possess such minuscule value in comparison to its original meaning and is now applicable to a vast spectrum of scenarios that it’s employed arbitrarily. In fact, sometimes it can even be endearing. 

I have a close friend who primarily addresses me as, “Hey slut!” She wouldn’t casually use this term with a stranger and utters this statement as a form of humor that ultimately solidifies our relationship. 

However, when used by a man in a method to belittle my less than there outfit or my questionable back-wall dance moves, I’m still not compelled to lecture him on its origin. If slut is made to reference my sexual history then the individual’s logic is inconsistent because I am the only one with knowledge of those statistics. 

I am sure of who I am, and acknowledge that my sexual choices are distinctly disconnected from my levels of intelligence, kindness, morality and creativity. Terms like slut, whore, and ugly are not only grounded in superficiality and can only be assessed subjectively but simply put shouldn’t offend you because they aren’t a reflection of your character or influence in the world. Why isn’t it more hurtful to be called vain, vindictive, or boring? These descriptors have powerful definitions that attack an individual’s relationships and person.

So, we’re not friends and you’ve decided to call me a slut. If you’re a boy and we’re at the bar, or my personal fave, yelling it from your vehicle, thank you for helping me identify the ignorant swine lingering on the StFX campus. I now have a mental image of the cowards with whom myself and my friends should avoid romantic involvement. 

Females also like to throw the term out particularly when intoxicated or among a jealous fit, but once again, I’m left unfazed because you’ve only displayed your lack of imagination and weak vocabulary. Your suffering English lexicon has made it look as though I thrive in all other branches life with your decision to use such a meaningless word. 

If you are called a slut, do not cry or worse, whine. Laugh if said by a friend, have an intellectually stunning response if spewed by a meathead, or simply remember that that boy will not have the luxury of having sex with you. 

We need to check our priorities, be confident and orchestrate a symphony of work so loud it drowns out unworthy voices and meritless language.