Are "trigger warnings" useful for some content in online classes? 

In the past, I’ve had students in my Film and Politics students informally reach out to ask to be excused from potentially upsetting films. These included combat veterans concerned about war films and religious adherents concerned about language and sexuality (the class does not feature anything above an R rating and even then, only those with substantive political content.) I always suggest an alternative film in these cases. 

Recently I had a Film and Politics student email to ask about content in the semester’s films related to sexual violence, assault, domestic violence, and abuse. Concerned that this could be a survivor, I did my best to respond as completely as I could. The first films are Ava DuVernay’s documentary “13th” and Raul Peck’s “I Am Not Your Negro” based on the writings of James Baldwin. I consider both films difficult but necessary accounts of racism past and present. Both films feature multiple photos and news footage of racial violence and film clips from a variety of other films. In my response to the student, I missed accounting for one brief scene, a rape scene from the award-winning film “12 Years a Slave,” featured in “13th.” I felt bad about the omission, to say the least.

So, I started thinking about a more formal policy to help students in these cases. As I researched the issue I found a variety  of perspectives about what is popularly termed “trigger warnings.” It is argued by some that trigger warnings coddle students and are counter to academic freedom and the mission of higher education to confront and work through difficult material using reason. It is also argued that it creates a chilling effect for teachers and doesn’t prepare students for the real world where diverse views and disturbing images will be present. Some research suggests that the use of trigger warnings can actually increase rather than decrease student anxiety. Others critique this research noting that it has focused on a general student population rather than trauma survivors specifically. 

Given the concern about the limitations of current research by not focusing on trauma survivors, I felt it necessary to err on the side of caution for this class. I don’t require students to self-disclose why they may want to substitute a film. It is possible someone could take advantage of such a claim, but since another film is substituted, it isn’t an easier path. I explicitly do not include upset over an ideological disagreement with content as a legitimate claim. At the same time, it is impossible to know ahead of time how an individual student will react to content or what content may be perceived as disturbing.  And as the above example of the student concerned with gender-based violence in the films from my class shows, it’s impossible to make oneself responsible for detecting every possible problem. That’s not healthy for teachers or students.

I found a student-created website from Brandeis University helpful in crafting my new, more explicit policy. It cautions against using the term “trigger warning” in discussing course content.

They write: “’Warning’ can signify that something is imminent or guaranteed to happen, which may cause additional stress about the content to be covered. We can also never guarantee that someone will not be triggered during a conversation or training; people's triggers vary widely. The content note allows the same message to be conveyed, sharing details about the information/topics to come, without implying it is an exhaustive list or implying that someone is certain to be triggered.”

Their points and looking at samples from other higher ed intuitions guided my more neutral wording. I highlight possible known triggers in my statement and stress the need for students to research films on their own to determine if something is suitable for viewing in their case. They have the ultimate choice and responsibility. I was also glad to find websites that crowdsource potentially disturbing content to empower students to research the semester films and make choices. My statement (which continues to be revised) is reproduced below. I’d welcome any suggestions for revisions or ideas on how you approach this issue in your classes. 

Potentially disturbing content in our course films:

I want to share some thoughts about potentially disturbing images and content in the assigned movies and offer some resources and alternatives so students can make informed choices about viewing our films and emotionally prepare for potentially disturbing content or choose to see another film.  

The images in some of our films speak to the difficult truths the films evoke about parts of US history and our present-day that have too long been denied. They also speak to the unique power of film as an immersive art form that engages the heart and mind. Good art of any kind should provoke and disturb with the intent of sharing another’s perspective or shifting our perspectives. 

But how much is too much? Are the scenes appropriate to the content and the film’s messages? There are different views. 

I think there are no easy answers. The answers will be different for different people. Some people perceive a difference in viewing scenes of actual violence versus viewing violent scenes in a fictional film you know to be staged with special effects. I will disclose that I have always had difficulty with explicit violence in films of any kind.  As many times as I have seen the “Godfather” films, there are still scenes where I look away.

Resources to make an informed choice

Here are three websites that crowdsource potentially disturbing content in films. You may find these a useful resource for determining if a film is safe for viewing in your case. Also, be aware the sites have spoilers.  

IMBD Parents Guide: Though designed for families, in addition to sex and violence, it also identifies some emotionally intense scenes that may not have physical violence. The scenes are described. I searched some of our films here and found this guide detailed and helpful.

Does the Dog Die: This site is somewhat less complete than IMDB in terms of the number of films covered but still helpful. It includes many categories of potentially disturbing content ranging from violence and racial slurs to animal cruelty and much more. It relies on a self-reported checklist with room for comments below. 

Unconsenting Media: This site is focused on scenes of sexual violence, sexual assault, and harassment and whether those acts are discussed, implied, or shown in the film. Not all films are included, but many are and their categories are comprehensive. Topic boxes are ticked in a list in an easy-to-follow graphic and films are given a green or red light. Comments/context may or may not appear below the checklist. Scenes of domestic violence are not part of the evaluation checklist but are sometimes mentioned below in descriptive notes. 

Looking at all these sites will give you a fairly comprehensive picture of a film, but because the sites are crowdsourced, and the reporting is subjective, it’s still possible something may be missed. For example, because domestic violence is not a category, the first “Godfather'' film gets the green light from Unconsenting Media (though the domestic violence is noted below). The film’s domestic violence is included in Does the Dog Die and more detail and context for these scenes are available in IMBD Parents Guide. The latter two sites also deal with general violence, but because of their specialized focus, Unconsenting Media does not. Pre-1970s films are sometimes included on these sites, and sometimes not.

This semester’s films that have potentially disturbing content include “13th,” “I Am Not Your Negro,” the “Godfather” trilogy, “Get Out,'' and “Rat Film.” The intersection of violence with race and gender can present another layer of concern. In addition to gangland violence, the “Godfather” films also portray a patriarchal culture with scenes of domestic violence in the first two films. Do not assume that because the first two films of the trilogy were made in the 1970s they are less graphic. At that time, young filmmakers like Coppola and Scorsese were given extraordinary freedom. Films of that era can still shock and in some cases are more explicit in terms of sex and violence than films of today. I would argue some 70s films could not be made or released today. As a genre-bending horror film, “Get Out” has graphic violence. “Rat Film '' has scenes of animal harm. 

I would also encourage you to research ANY film we show this semester as people have different issues that could make content potentially disturbing. 

If anyone feels that a film could possibly be disturbing, let me know and we’ll work on finding a replacement. (Note: This does not include being offended by a film’s ideological stance). Being challenged and upset (what the late congressman John Lewis called “good trouble”), which can lead to productive reflection, is one thing. Aggravating trauma or mental health issues is another thing entirely. Some religious adherents may have issues with profanity or sexual content. Err on the side of caution this semester. We all have enough stressors in the world now without adding more to the mix. 

In providing resources so you can make informed decisions I don’t want to give the impression that violence is the only focus of these films. The films are chosen because they represent significant historical and contemporary political issues. The “Godfather” trilogy explores prejudice, immigration, capitalism, and the dark side of the American Dream. Like many films in the gangster genre, it shows how societal outgroups create alternative political, policing, and economic organizations to compensate for what they are denied in mainstream society. Those alternative institutions are then compared with the corruption of US politics and capitalism and the hollowness of the American Dream. “Get Out” brilliantly dissects some of the more subtle forms of contemporary racism. “Rat Film” is a sharp-edged documentary addressing systemic and institutional racism.