Despite nearly 300 complaints—almost all from outside the classroom—Abertay University’s inquiry found a lecture appropriate, reigniting debate over trigger warnings and the balance between student wellbeing and academic freedom, says Sebastian Monteux.

The recent controversy surrounding Abertay University and lecturer Stuart Waiton offers a revealing snapshot of the pressures shaping modern higher education. At the centre of the debate sits a decision that, in most academic contexts, would appear routine: the invitation of a guest speaker from Justice for Innocent Men Scotland (JIMS) to address fourth-year criminology students on a module enabling students to develop ‘critical understanding of the issues surrounding policing and changes in criminal justice policies and practices’. Yet, this decision triggered a wave of complaints, a formal investigation, and a broader discussion about the boundaries of acceptable teaching.

Last week, the university concluded its five-month investigation and found that including the speaker was appropriate for the module, regardless of one’s view of the group’s aims and membership. None of the complaints was upheld. This alone suggests the controversy may have been overstated. Even more striking is who raised objections. Of roughly 300 complaints, only one came from a student who had attended the lecture. Most came from external individuals or organisations, with a few from Abertay students not enrolled on the module. The investigation also noted that many of the students present found the session balanced and relevant.

Despite this outcome, the investigators issued several recommendations. Among them was a call to consider setting out guidance on the use of trigger warnings. This recommendation speaks to a wider cultural shift within universities, where concerns about student wellbeing increasingly intersect with questions about academic practice and freedom of expression.

Abertay University concludes probe into controversial lecture

Edinburgh plans for 2040 — but is Scotland ready to match England’s ambition?

A last column and a powerful conversation that put Britain’s problems in perspective

Scotland will not settle the fate of the Prime Minister – but English voters might

SNP fatigue is clear — but John Swinney may convince voters to stick with him

Trigger warnings, sometimes referred to as content warnings, are designed to alert individuals to material that may evoke distress, often linked to past traumatic experiences. Advocates frame them as a compassionate and pragmatic tool. They argue that warnings allow students to prepare themselves emotionally, regulate their responses, or decide how to engage with difficult material. Some see them as an extension of inclusive teaching, akin to other forms of academic accommodation. Others suggest they foster empathy within the classroom and support a trauma-informed approach to education.

This perspective has gained traction alongside broader institutional initiatives. Across the UK, universities and sector bodies have explored ways to embed wellbeing into the curriculum. Policies emphasise safe learning environments, student autonomy, and sensitivity to lived experience. In this context, trigger warnings appear as a reasonable and humane adjustment.

Yet the case for their effectiveness remains uncertain. A growing body of research challenges the assumption that trigger warnings deliver the benefits their proponents expect. Studies examining their impact reveal a consistent pattern. A recent meta-analysis by Bridgland and colleagues, which combined multiple studies, found that trigger warnings do not reduce distress. They do not improve comprehension or learning outcomes. Instead, they can heighten anticipatory anxiety, prompting individuals to worry about content before they encounter it. The warnings may generate the very psychological and emotional unease they aim to prevent.

Other recent research trials, including that of Kimble and colleagues in the USA, point in the same direction. Students rarely use warnings to avoid material. Emotional responses remain broadly similar whether warnings are present or not. In some cases, the warnings themselves introduce an added layer of distress. These findings raise important questions about unintended consequences. If warnings encourage a heightened focus on potential harm, they may reinforce a sense of vulnerability rather than resilience.

Even organisations such as PTSD UK, which work directly with and advocate for people with trauma, acknowledge the limits of prediction in this area. Triggers vary widely between individuals and can arise from almost any stimulus. Attempts to categorise and label content risk oversimplifying this complexity. They may also imply a hierarchy of experiences, where some forms of distress receive recognition while others remain unmarked.

None of this suggests that the intention behind trigger warnings lacks merit. The desire to support students and acknowledge diverse experiences reflects a genuine concern for wellbeing. The British Psychological Society (BPS), for example, has taken a balanced position, recognising that the evidence base remains, at best, equivocal. It suggests that while trigger warnings may help some individuals make informed choices, their overall psychological impact appears limited.

Universities occupy a distinct space within society. Their purpose extends beyond the transmission of knowledge. They serve as arenas for contestation, inquiry, and the testing of ideas. Students encounter perspectives that challenge assumptions, unsettle beliefs, and provoke disagreement. This process forms a central part of intellectual development and resilience.

Within such an environment, the routine use of trigger warnings risks sending a conflicting message. It frames exposure to difficult material as a potential harm to be managed, rather than a necessary component of learning. It positions students primarily as vulnerable, rather than as capable individuals able to engage with complexity and discomfort.

The events at Abertay illustrate this tension clearly. A lecture designed to explore a contested topic within criminology prompted significant external reaction, yet no evidence of harm among those directly involved. The subsequent call for trigger warning guidance reflects broader pressures rather than the specific realities of the classroom.

Universities should resist the impulse to default to protective measures that lack a strong evidence base. A more constructive approach would emphasise clear communication about course content, alongside support structures that empower students to navigate challenging material. This approach recognises both the importance of wellbeing and the value of intellectual resilience. But these were not recommendations of the investigation because all were already in place.

At their best, universities encourage students to confront difficult questions, engage with opposing viewpoints, and develop the capacity to think critically under pressure. These qualities emerge through exposure, not avoidance.

It is also worth acknowledging the nature of the reaction itself. Much of the criticism directed at Stuart Waiton appears to have little to do with pedagogical practice. A glance at the tone of online vitriol suggests a deeper hostility toward him personally and his views. For many, the issue centred on the presence of a controversial perspective rather than the experience of students in the room.

In this light, the language of psychological safety can serve a different function. It becomes a means of legitimising efforts to shut down debate rather than engage with it. Those who objected most forcefully showed little interest in nuance or context. Their goal appears closer to silencing than discussion.

Trigger warnings offer no solution to that problem. If anything, they risk reinforcing a culture in which discomfort is treated as a signal to retreat rather than an invitation to think. Universities should hold their ground. They should promote resilience, encourage open debate, and trust students and staff to meet and support the demands of higher education.

Sebastian Monteux is a Lecturer in Mental Health Nursing at Abertay University but writes here in a personal capacity.

© Herald Scotland