I remember taking the final in college. It was traumatizing, not because of the subject matter (which might well have been traumatizing had I been inclined to be traumatized), but because I forgot that I was registered in the class and never went to a lecture or read the books. It wasn’t until I received notification of when the final was to be held that I realized my error. It was too late to drop the course, so I had no other option than to show up for the final and do my best to pull it off.

I should have gone to Sheffield University.

Professors already give “trigger warnings” when using images from video games, war photographs and depictions about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ or when organising discussions about underage sex, homelessness and religion.

Sheffield students complained last year of being “distressed and anxious” and “in tears” after sensitive material was covered in their English literature studies.

The mental health society, part of the students’ union, raised concerns about the discussion of sexual abuse in a module on Restoration literature and said “disturbing material had arisen in other modules”.

Reading lists for the degree include Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, which features violence, rape and racism.

I was distressed. I was anxious. But still I had a final exam to take. If only they were more sensitive to my feelings.

The students’ letter argued students should not have to “put their own mental health at risk to receive an education”.

A separate email claimed that “one girl left crying and later had a panic attack”.

To remedy this horror, this infliction of trauma on students, Sheffield will allow students to not take tests, not write papers, not have to endure the trauma of . . . education. And if a student says they can’t bear to suffer the horror of reading Toni Morrison, the profs must accept it without question.

Instead, they are warned “it should not be necessary for students to explain their back story” to have the option of a safer topic.

Some academics, however, take issue with their marching orders, even arguing that the subject matter of their courses, their tests, shouldn’t be negotiable.

Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at Kent University, warned that to label content as potentially dangerous “cultivates the sense of fragility of students”.

He added: “This focus on the possible emotional response of a student loses sight of the centrality of the course.”

By “centrality,” perhaps he means the subject matter of the class. It’s not as if one can teach biology but leave out the lady bits, or teach crim law and leave out rape, even though prawfs may be doing just that to avoid the inevitable backlash of the perpetually outraged.

But Furedi raises the question of whether this inane policy protects students from trauma or “cultivates” fragility. After all, dealing with unpleasant topics is often a part of education, as well as a part of life. By giving students a free pass whenever they anticipate the potential of “trauma,” are they not missing a valuable piece of their education, both in the subject matter as well as the capacity to deal with occasional unpleasantness?

Critics said exams should not be up for negotiation because it could lead students to anticipate being traumatised by material.

Had this been the rule when I learned of my inadvertent failure to attend a course for which I was registered, you can bet your bottom dollar I would have invoked the “don’t trauamatize me, bro,” rule. And that I wouldn’t even have to make up a story about why is the cherry on the sundae. As it turned out, I got a D in the course, as the prof knew I had never shown and took pity on me. But to this day, I can’t quote Toni Morrison, a stain that can never be washed out.