What you write is beautiful, profound, and from my vantage point — correct. Your viewpoint on trigger warnings is, from my vantage point, correct. And I say that not only as a trauma survivor (of many types), but also as a psychotherapist. Your view on the dangers of too safe a space (one that is pro-censorship) and too compulsory a trigger warning agrees with mine. At the same time, what the Dean said is not anywhere close to what you are saying. You create nuance, depth, and education where he left all of that out. I’m also aware that I read the Dean’s letter with many broad, angry strokes in my own head — not about U of C’s policies — but about his misleading language and bizarrely off-putting tone, which led me to react to him as though he is an idiot (he probably isn’t). I don’t know what he intended or even what he meant — but what he said was at best misleading and at worst offensive in its pre-emptive defensiveness and misuse of highly charged terms. Using these terms correctly and precisely — as you have in your post — is an important skill. And a skill that was not used in this letter. You don’t, from what I read, support his letter. You support specific policies that he doesn’t refer to CLEARLY in his letter. If he had referred to policies clearly, it might have been a letter I too support. But that’s not the letter he wrote.