Return to Answer

Giving a complete answer here would require knowing everything along these lines that has ever been done in any US university (or knowing which, if any, specific examples of this Naulleau had in mind), so I can't do that.

Here is something that I think has a decent chance of being what Naulleau was referring to, even though the details differ from the description. It isn't a matter of field being treated as a "trigger word" that lecturers must warn about: rather, it is a memo that was sent when a department changed its name from "Office of Field Education" to "Office of Practicum Education". The use of the word "field" in the context of expressions like "magnetic fields" doesn't seem to be what the memo is about (I suspect that magnetic fields do not have a large place in the curriculum of the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work).

As the article notes, this memo received some public attention, which is why I think it's plausible that the idea of lecturers giving trigger warnings for the word "field" is a garbled reference to this.

Here is something that I think has a decent chance of being what Naulleau was referring to, even though the details differ from the description. It isn't a matter of field being treated as a "trigger word" that lecturers must warn about: rather, it is a memo that was sent when a department changed its name from "Office of Field Education" to "Office of Practicum Education". The use of the word "field" in the context of expressions like "magnetic fields" doesn't seem to be what the memo is about (I suspect that magnetic fields do not have a large place in the curriculum of the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work).

As the article notes, this memo received some public attention, which is why I think it's plausible that the idea of lecturers giving trigger warnings for the word "field" is a garbled reference to this. It seems some other social work programs have also made similar terminological changes; the following blog post mentions Cal State Northridge and Smith College: Knowledge is under attack, and “fieldwork” isn’t the problem (by Philip N. Cohen, May 12, 2023, Family Inequality).

Here is something that I think has a decent chance of being what Naulleau was referring to, even though the details differ from the description. It isn't a matter of field being treated as a "trigger word" that lecturers must warn about: rather, it is a memo that was sent when a department changed its name from "Office of Field Education" to "Office of Practicum Education". The use of the word "field" in the context of expressions like "magnetic fields" is not what the memo is about (I suspect that magnetic fields do not have a large place in the curriculum of the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work).

Here is something that I think has a decent chance of being what Naulleau was referring to, even though the details differ from the description. It isn't a matter of field being treated as a "trigger word" that lecturers must warn about: rather, it is a memo that was sent when a department changed its name from "Office of Field Education" to "Office of Practicum Education". The use of the word "field" in the context of expressions like "magnetic fields" doesn't seem to be what the memo is about (I suspect that magnetic fields do not have a large place in the curriculum of the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work).

Here is something that I think has a decent chance of being what Naulleau was referring to, even though the details differ from the description. It isn't a matter of field being treated as a "trigger word" that lecturers must warn about: rather, it is a memo communicated in relation to a department changing its name from "Office of Field Education" to "Office of Practicum Education". The use of the word "field" in the context of expressions like "magnetic fields" doesn't seem to be what the policy is focused on (I suspect that magnetic fields do not have a large place in the curriculum of the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work).

For a bit of background on the concept of trigger warnings in higher education, here is another NPR article: "Half Of Professors In NPR Ed Survey Have Used 'Trigger Warnings'" (September 7, 2016, All Things Considered, by Anya Kamenetz). It notes that of the college faculty respondents that reported giving warnings about content in class material, the majority did so as a matter of personal judgement, not at student request or to comply with a policy, and "only 1.8 percent said, as of last fall, that their institutions had any official policies about their use." So keep in mind that professors giving trigger warnings is not only unstandardized and far from universal, but also often not a matter of official university policy. Based on the information in the article, as well as my own experience, I highly doubt that any US university has an official policy that would either prevent professors or lecturers from using the phrase "magnetic fields" in instruction, or require them to warn their students about it.

Here is something that I think has a decent chance of being what Naulleau was referring to, even though the details differ from the description. It isn't a matter of field being treated as a "trigger word" that lecturers must warn about: rather, it is a memo that was sent when a department changed its name from "Office of Field Education" to "Office of Practicum Education". The use of the word "field" in the context of expressions like "magnetic fields" is not what the memo is about (I suspect that magnetic fields do not have a large place in the curriculum of the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work).

For a bit of background on the concept of trigger warnings in higher education, here is another NPR article: "Half Of Professors In NPR Ed Survey Have Used 'Trigger Warnings'" (September 7, 2016, All Things Considered, by Anya Kamenetz). It notes that of the college faculty respondents that reported giving warnings about content in class material, the majority did so as a matter of personal judgement, not at student request or to comply with a policy, and "only 1.8 percent said, as of last fall, that their institutions had any official policies about their use." So keep in mind that professors giving trigger warnings is not only unstandardized and far from universal, but also often not a matter of official university policy. Based on the information in the article, as well as my own experience, I highly doubt that any US university has an official policy that would prevent professors or lecturers from using the phrase "magnetic fields" in instruction, or require them to warn their students about it.

Certainly, no such policy is in place at USC. After the memo became a topic of public discussion, the interim provost and senior vice president for academic affairs, Elizabeth A. Graddy, stated in an email to The Washington Times that

The university does not maintain a list of banned or discouraged words. We will continue to use words – including ‘field’ – that accurately encompass and describe our work and research

("USC to keep using word ‘field’ despite departmental ban over slavery ‘connotations’", Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Thursday, January 12, 2023)