Trigger Warning: Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces are Dumb

A friend of ours who studied philosophy at a top university once told us an amusing anecdote. Prefacing a course on classical philosophy, the professor explained that he would not be reading the ancient philosophers through the lens of modern values and so, for example, would not impose on them gender-neutral pronouns and would not censor any perceived “misogynistic” or “bigoted” language. This didn’t sit well with some of the students, who rudely began to protest in the lecture, shocked at the professor’s insensitivity. In response, they were told they could leave. Some left. A short time later, the professor sent an email to those who left letting them know that they would be failed.

For those of us who fear that academia is trending evermore towards the infantilization of students by insisting on accommodating all manner of emotional, fetishistic fragilities, the anecdote inspires in us a strong sense of solidarity with the professor, and perhaps a stronger sense of schadenfreude for the students. The professor understood that the university is no place for those who insist on such benighted anachronisms, speech codes, trigger warnings, or safe spaces.

Or, at least, it wasn’t. The original purpose of the university was to seek and explore truth, a purpose that is at odds with speech codes, trigger warnings, and safe spaces. One important way of pursuing truth is to engage in critical dialogue. Ancient philosophers mastered this through what has come to be known as the elenctic method. This simply cannot be done when students are encouraged to take offense at, conditioned to feel “hurt” by, and protected from, opposing ideas. Despite the protestations of some feminists and other limp-wristed philosophers who confuse being combative with being rude, critical philosophical dialogue is and should be at least to some degree inherently antagonistic, and so is, as a consequence, also inherently antagonistic to speech codes, trigger warnings, and safe spaces. Let us explain.

Consider safe spaces. These are designated areas on university campuses where certain views—invariably leftist views—are not allowed to be questioned. Brown University, for instance, set up a safe space complete with coloring books, cookies, various soft fuzzy things, and a video of frolicking puppies where students could take cover from a debate about “rape culture” being held nearby on campus. And as “free speech zones”—which used to be all of America, especially university campuses—shrink to the size of dimly lit corners of unoccupied halls on campus, the “safe spaces” expand to fill the void left by them. In 2014 a group of 300 leftist agitators shut down a debate on abortion at the University of Oxford, partly on the grounds that the issue is no longer up for debate, but also because the two scheduled debaters were men (as if not having a uterus disqualifies one from debating the issue). On that day, the whole Oxford campus became a very safe space for the leftist agitators who couldn’t tolerate disagreement. Pushed to the margins, however, were Oxford Students for Life, who invited someone with whom they disagreed to dialogue in good elenctic fashion. If there is a case where conservative students have shut down an event organized by leftists, we are unaware of it. But there is no shortage of other examples where leftists hijack events organized by conservatives. On one occasion, the leftist bullies went so far as to pull a fire alarm to prevent conservative speaker Ben Shapiro from giving a lecture (so much for the “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” argument for restricting free speech…).

As the above examples illustrate, leftists promote safe spaces not because they want protection for the weak and offended. Anyone who is so weak that they can’t attend a challenging event without getting hysterical can simply refrain from attending. Their dorm rooms are safe enough. They want safe spaces because they want protection from debating their ideas. This is why what they really want is for the whole university to become a safe space, which would conveniently allow only leftist thought to flourish.

Now consider trigger warnings. Some philosophers defend the use of trigger warnings by clarifying exactly what a trigger warning is supposed to do. Trigger warnings, such people argue, don’t stifle critical dialogue, but enhance it by giving participants for adequate preparation. They also suggest that “content that is ‘merely offensive to certain people’s political or religious sensibilities’ does not warrant a trigger warning.” Fair enough. It is possible to give a defense of trigger warnings that isn’t insane. But whether a palatable defense of trigger warnings can be given is, we submit, not relevant. What’s relevant is how trigger warnings are being used here and now and what their effects are on student bodies. We live in a culture where offense-taking has become a sport, with people competing with each other for the prize money and glory that will be rewarded to who is most offended. And in this sport, getting offended by even classic works of art by white males is fair game.

In the light of this circus, it’s perfectly understandable why the University of Chicago announced to incoming students that “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” have no place there. It does not want to degenerate into another intellectually stifling hotbed of political correctness that once venerable institutions like Yale and the University of Missouri now are. Give these untutored yet entitled students an inch in form of speech codes, trigger warnings, and safe spaces, and they will take the whole mile of the university, gleefully dumping its original purpose of pursuing truth along the way. Universities have a duty to their students—as well as to their faculty—to uphold that original purpose, because that purpose is worth protecting more than students’ feelings.

Charles Martel

Charles has degree in philosophy and is currently studying in France. He is staunchly Catholic, staunchly opposed to leftism, and wants to save western civilization. For some reason, he thinks studying philosophy might help achieve that goal.

View All Posts


Conservatrarian has a degree in philosophy from the UK. He has published papers mostly on topics in applied ethics. Conservatrarian carries a Glock 19 with a 15 round magazine on his hip at all times, so mess with him at your own peril.

View All Posts

Federal Philosopher

Federal Philosopher is a philosophy graduate student in New Jersey. She was awakened from her political slumbers after reading biographies of Margaret Thatcher—one of her heroes. She loves philosophy, but thinks the profession has been hijacked by a bunch of leftist bullies who are little more than partisan journalists that happen to know philosophical jargon. She carries a recurve bow and quiver full of arrows at all times, so as not to trigger leftists by saying she packs a .380 in her purse.

View All Posts


  1. Good luck with that. Living in Germany where any doubt about the benefits of mass immigration has been smothered by allegations of racism, I find it worrisome that even in the US conservative academics have to stay anonymous.

    I hope your blog will become a source for intelligent debate and not just another echo chamber as so many other academic blogs now are.

    As a European, I would like to know when and why the great divide between left and right occured in the US public sphere. Moreover, how it is that both(!) sides appear to hold certain things as facts when the opposite appears to be true and has far more empirical data to support it. I have sympathy for holding a creed of abstract ideas, but what worries someone in the middle like me, is that both ends of the political spectrum reject certain simple facts.

    For instance, I think it is a fact or at least far more plausible to argue that easy access to assault rifles increases the risk for mass shootings whilst offering no protection from an evil government that has access to drones and fighter jets, thereby undermining the need for the second amendment, which in this case is rendered ineffective. On the other hand, I do think that immigration ought to be controlled and weighted against the needs of the absorbing society and that factors like cultural background and assimilation potential are important factors in that regard. And there is ample evidence that certain cultures are more compatible with our Western values. Of course, you might disagree about these particular instances, but I think that any thinking person wonders how even basic “descriptive”(and perhaps scientifically proven) facts about the world can be denied by people leaning either to the far right or far left.

    • Thanks for your comment, Waltraud!

      I agree with everything you wrote about culture and immigration. If you’d like to see the empirical evidence about assault rifles, I highly recommend that you buy Dr. John Lott’s new book that deals with this issue, The War on Guns. In it, he compiles the data of mass shootings and shows that the EU (and many European countries individually) actually have a higher rate of mass shootings and deaths and injuries from them than the United States.

  2. With regard to conservative students shutting down an event organized by leftists, I don’t think the issue of whether the organizer of the event was a leftist or not is relevant with regard to the acceptability of shutting it down because of the content of the speech. But in any case, there are examples just in the US of events shut down either by means such as protesting letters from students, pressure from prominent right-wing professors, or by heckling.
    The following are examples I got from the FIRE’s disinvitation database ( ).

    Opposition from students and professors:

    Pressure from professors (I know, it’s not an example of conservative students, but conservative professors. But I think that’s a problem as well).

    Heckling by students:

    Pressure from right-wing students and other people from the right:

    With regard to the University of Chicago, they allow trigger warnings, but don’t demand them. And they also seem to allow “safe spaces”, but they don’t impose them (source: the video linked to on )
    By the way, while some leftists support trigger warnings and safe spaces and there seems to be a problem of intimidation, some other leftists oppose them, or at least do not support them. One example is the professor in the video in question. Another is Brian Leiter (e.g., ). Following that link, you can find more examples in
    Still, the impression I get (from a distance) is that the current trend from the left is mostly against speech they deem offensive, or otherwise a problem.

  3. I think nobody claims that either left or right are monolithic and people on either side agree on everything. Apart from that, some of your links are more than a decade old.

Comments are closed.