What's not clear to me is whether students who suspect that the content of a given book might offend or upset them are given the option of not reading it. I'm assuming they are not being given that option. If I'm right, then I suppose a "warning" wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but it also seems to be rather pointless since the student will presumably still be offended or upset upon reading the book, even with advance warning. If a student is so sensitive that a warning is needed to mentally prepare for the anticipated experience of reading something that is potentially upsetting, the student can always make it his or her own practice to Google all reading material in advance to learn what may lie ahead. Forcing the teacher to be the one to characterize the book in advance, and to say things about the book that could influence the way the book is read, seems unnecessary and intrusive on the teacher-student relationship.
It also strikes me that giving these warnings is to treat students in a way that is more patronizing than movie or television ratings. On TV, many shows begin with the warning "Viewer discretion advised," but rarely do these warnings go into the sort of detail that "trigger" warnings apparently contemplate. And on TV, it's appropriate because the audience does not consist of people who have signed up for a course in which they have agreed to submit to a teacher's curriculum. There may even be parents who are watching with young children. In a college course, everyone is an adult and everyone has agreed to be guided by the professor's judgment when it comes to required reading and viewing.
|
Threaded Mode
