At Cornell (Finally) A Stand for Academic Freedom and Against Wokeness

[Heyo]

It has to do with age ratings and content guidelines; some corporations want visibility among a large audience that includes minors. As a result, they enforce a PG-equivalent rating on sites that wish to list their ads and make money from said ads.

"Wokeness" is entirely irrelevant to that. It's just a classic example of money talking.

I know, just trying to rile up @Revoltingest - and failing.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I know, just trying to rile up @Revoltingest - and failing.

Then you should have claimed that ads are a socialist invention and praised socialism on that basis.

I'm sure @Revoltingest agrees my approach would have been more conducive to that end.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I dont think it's hard to add a trigger warning of common triggers you dont need everything just common triggers. And i think that as @Guitar's Cry. Pointed out someone who'd be trigger by something like say Rape probably already has real world experience with the topic. If something is really really needed to know then there can be a compromise between the student and the teacher. Dont know what that might be like maybe talking about the issue but not going into extreme detail like mentioning that folk were raped during the Korean war but not giving a graphic account of someone being raped. Maybe send the student out for the graphic part if the teacher feels it's that important with the student knowing that rape occurred in the situation. Oh and if a student is triggered maybe by an uncommon trigger have them see the counselor to help them calm down. Im triggered by rats due to some past trauma regarding them for example and i wouldnt expect a trigger warning for rats.

Yeah, and I today get triggered by having a fast moving situation and something important at play, so I want to be a paramedic and please remove the triggers.
That is the other end of it. Yes, for some educations that is not relevant and there you can use trigger warnings. But you can use say my wife as working in social pedagogy, there are some limits in some variants of her work, where you can't use trigger warnings.

 

[VoidCat]

Yeah, and I today get triggered by having a fast moving situation and something important at play, so I want to be a paramedic and please remove the triggers.
That is the other end of it. Yes, for some educations that is not relevant and there you can use trigger warnings. But you can use say my wife as working in social pedagogy, there are some limits in some variants of her work, where you can't use trigger warnings.

Most disabled folk including those with PTSD know their limits. They wouldn't be trying to get a job that they can't handle. If someone is triggered by fast moving situations then they likely know they can't be a paramedic and wouldn't be in education for it. Just like i know i can't do a job in fast food due to it involving lots of fine motor skills and I wouldnt be able to cook fast enough due to my disabilities. So I wouldn't be trying to get into fast food or going to school to be a chef. And yes i get in some circumstances you cant use trigger warnings. Doesn't mean you can't include them when possible if it helps some folk

 

[metis]

As a professor, I think it's just common courtesy to tell students there is graphic material in any course material. I don't call it a "trigger warning" but it is one in essence.

Yep. When finishing up my undergrad studies in anthropology, in one of my classes we were studying primatology, and the professor told us in a session before we would see some of them mating, thus if that would bother one then, it's best to skip that session.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Which notes? How many possible emotional triggers do you suppose there could be in any given book?

I think a simple note of "Some of the material presented in this class includes graphic depictions of rape and violence. Please see me if this may be an issue" would suffice.

Skipping assigned content is a very bad president to assume. One that should only be negotiated on an individual case by case basis.

Which can be done if the student is alerted to it, through, let's say, a quick note in the syllabus.

I think we really need to stop letting the politicians and the students run the schools. Everyone should have their say, but in the end, the professionals have to be able to do their jobs or the whole endeavor is pointless

Do you think adding a quick note in a syllabus really prevents a professor from doing their job?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Something easily determined by a discussion between student and professor.

A discussion started by a warning of graphic content, perhaps?

All this silly political interference is unnecessary and harmful to the overall purpose of the college. The student already has professional help available to her, and a means of avoiding the material if it's necessary and appropriate. No one else has any business imposing their 'solutions'. The system was not broken. The student was. So fix the student, not the system. It's that simple.

A graphic warning in the syllabus is also a simple solution. The material is still being included, it takes absolutely no time, and any problem a student may have can be worked out on an individual level.

Out of all of the useless tasks put on me as a teacher, this would actually be a very easy and possibly very helpful one.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Isn't the point of an education to learn how to overcome being "triggered" by unexpected information, revelation, artifice, etc.,? All the more reason not to cater to such illness or weakness, and instead, provide the tools to help the students overcome it. Which is, in fact, what most colleges already do.

There are a lot of things that college teaches beyond the curriculum, but it needs to be accessible first. A warning in the syllabus would provide that. It would have the benefit of also teaching the student to advocate for themselves and communicate with the professor about their problem and come to a compromise.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A cleaner analogy would be the warning for epileptics before movies or stage shows that strobing effects are being used.


In general, I don't put much weight behind random people on the internet telling me what should be on my reading list.

You posted the link in the context of a debate and in lieu of giving an actual argument yourself. I've considered it in that context: as a random link provided by someone who couldn't even be bothered to copy-paste the specific quotes they thought were especially relevant to the discussion.

Up to you, mate.
If you can't be bothered doing a quick google search on the research, read one article provided directly about the content, but still feel qualified to pontificate on the subject, you do you I guess.

 

[PureX]

That ability is gained through therapy, and it can take years to work through with medical professionals, sometimes without full resolution of symptoms. It's not gained by merely being randomly exposed to PTSD triggers in a classroom or another everyday setting.

In the meantime, any potential triggers can be discussed and avoided by the individual with their professor. Problem solved. No giant 'one-size-that-can't-fit-all' resolution is needed or required. The other 99.9% of the students can read the text without all the silly and unnecessary labeling.

 

[PureX]

I think a simple note of "Some of the material presented in this class includes graphic depictions of rape and violence. Please see me if this may be an issue" would suffice.

Which can be done if the student is alerted to it, through, let's say, a quick note in the syllabus.

Do you think adding a quick note in a syllabus really prevents a professor from doing their job?

I think this is a whole lot of noise about nothing. I also think it's the person with the most unique circumstance that is responsible for ameliorating the circumstance. Not everyone around them. I have no problem with the professor mentioning that the content of some assigned material might be upsetting, and why. I expect that happens already. I was in college a very long time ago, and the professors would certainly have said something similar even back then, long before we all became adult babies that expect the whole world to cater to our special emotional needs and sensitivities.

 

[PureX]

A discussion started by a warning of graphic content, perhaps?

Or by reading the assigned text, and stopping when it becomes apparent that it is a problem for her, and eplaining the situation to the professor. You keep assuming that it's everyone else's responsibility to guard against this woman being triggered. It's not. She is the anomaly. She is the special circumstance. So it's her responsibility to guard herself against this problem. Not everyone else's.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think this is a whole lot of noise about nothing.

If that's the case, what are your posts?

If noise about nothing is bad, how much worse is noise about noise about nothing?

I also think it's the person with the most unique circumstance that is responsible for ameliorating the circumstance. Not everyone around them. I have no problem with the professor mentioning that the content of some assigned material might be upsetting, and why.

So you expect no special accommodation of your strange emotional reaction to trigger warnings?

I expect that happens already. I was in college a very long time ago, and the professors would certainly have said something similar even back then, long before we all became adult babies that expect the whole world to cater to our special emotional needs and sensitivities.

From my perspective, it isn't so much about asking people to cater to my needs; it's about asking what we can do as a society to accommodate the needs of others. Compassion, not entitlement.

... and looking at the issue through that lens, your position is the one that comes across as demanding and entitled.

Or maybe a better description of it is spiteful. You lose absolutely nothing by a school making it slightly easier for some students to participate. It seems you just don't like it when other people get helped a bit.

 

[PureX]

If that's the case, what are your posts?

If noise about nothing is bad, how much worse is noise about noise about nothing?


So you expect no special accommodation of your strange emotional reaction to trigger warnings?

So, now that you've run out of justifications for your trigger warnings, you have decided to attack me. How unsurprising.

From my perspective, it isn't so much about asking people to cater to my needs; it's about asking what we can do as a society to accommodate the needs of others. Compassion, not entitlement.

Compassion for the one, or compassion for the many? Where is the respect for everyone else in this scenario? All those people you are expecting to cater to the problems of one individual? Also, are we really helping that individual by creating an environment where their damage is being catered to, as opposed to expecting them to take responsibility for their own issues and dealing with them in a reasonable way? Without involving everyone else?

... and looking at the issue through that lens, your position is the one that comes across as demanding and entitled.

Unless you have compassion and respect for the many, and not just the one. Or you realize that even that one needs to take responsibility for their own predicament.

Or maybe a better description of it is spiteful. You lose absolutely nothing by a school making it slightly easier for some students to participate. It seems you just don't like it when other people get helped a bit.

It's already a tempest in a teapot stirred up by the media and by the hyperbolic divisions within society, as any professor assigning that kind of material will already advise the students of the content.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unless you have compassion and respect for the many, and not just the one. Or you realize that even that one needs to take responsibility for their own predicament.

Okay, I'll bite: how do you think providing trigger warnings on university reading lists is incompatible with "compassion and respect for the many"?

This should be a hoot.

 

[PureX]

Okay, I'll bite: how do you think providing trigger warnings on university reading lists is incompatible with "compassion and respect for the many"?

This should be a hoot.

If you can't see it nothing I say will open your eyes.

If you were missing a leg, and you expected everyone else to accommodate your infirmity by holding you up or carrying you around, do you think that's disrespecting them? Sure, some would choose to help you. Maybe even many. But does that make the rest bad people? Should there be laws passed making the be "good people"? Making them be "compassionate" according to you?

So the vast majority of professors would warn their class of disturbing content in an assignment. But a few will forget, or just neglect it, or even deliberately not say anything because they want the students to experience the full force of the text as it was intended. Are they now bad people? Do we need laws and punishments for these bad people because they failed to accommodate some student that may or may not even be in their class? Or may or may not be triggered by the content being assigned?

Or is your forced compassion just a lot of ineffective authoritarian nonsense masquerading as kindness?

I agree that societies should look out for the weaker, more ingured members among them. But that involves a cost to everyone else. And that cost needs to be considered and respected. Especially by those needing the extra help.

Can you understand any of this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you can't see it nothing I say will open your eyes.

If you were missing a leg, and you expected everyone else to accommodate your infirmity by holding you up or carrying you around, do you think that's disrespecting them? Sure, some would choose to help you. Maybe even many. But does that make the rest bad people? Should there be laws passed making the be "good people"? Making them be "compassionate" according to you?

So the vast majority of professors would warn their class of disturbing content in an assignment. But a few will forget, or just neglect it, or even deliberately not say anything because they want the students to experience the full force of the text as it was intended. Are they now bad people? Do we need laws and punishments for these bad people because they failed to accommodate some student that may or may not even be in their class? Or may or may not be triggered by the content being assigned?

Or is your forced compassion just a lot of ineffective authoritarian nonsense masquerading as kindness?

I agree that societies should look out for the weaker, more ingured members among them. But that involves a cost to everyone else. And that cost needs to be considered and respected. Especially by those needing the extra help.

Can you understand any of this.

Heh... yes: compassion to others offends you, and you want everyone to defer to you.

Part of my job involves ensuring infrastructure is built to AODA standards (similar to ADA in the US). If you think that trigger warnings are "forced compassion" and enough to get you foaming at the mouth like this, you must be downright apoplectic at the idea of putting in tactile plates at crosswalks for people with low vision, or with all the design - and expense - that can go into ensuring that a pedestrian pushbutton is at just the right spot to be reachable by someone in a wheelchair.

... or, more likely, you just don't have a clue.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Finally, Cornell shows some spine at the wave of wokeness and "cancellation" of rival points of view. Should College Come With Trigger Warnings? At Cornell, It’s a ‘Hard No.’




Cornell's administration vetoed the Student resolution to require "trigger warnings" stating: "“We cannot accept this resolution as the actions it recommends would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education,” Ms. Pollack wrote in a letter with the university provost, Michael I. Kotlikoff." My impression was that college students were expected to either be mature late adolescents or on their way to maturity. People who are mature or maturing need to learn to "roll with the punches" as long as those punches are verbal and not actual violence. To quote Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1926) (link):

I agree heartily with Justice Brandeis. 18-22 year olds should not need to be protected from hurtful literature. Does this mean "anything goes?" Well, I suppose that courses based on literature that is pure hate, such as Hitler's Mein Kampf would have few takers. I agree that those courses should be elective, not required. I could see a pre-display of intended reading matter, not "trigger warnings."
Three years ago, Cornell was on the wrong track. Cornell's President posted and blasted the following message (link), excerpt below:

As an alumnus, Cornell 1979 and my father (Cornell Engineering 1947), I responded, in part, as follows:

Just as Cornell did not put its knee of George Floyd's neck, Cornell is not a continuation of First Grade. I am proud that my Alma Mater is finally taking a stand. It is very much in the tradition of Cornell always being co-ed since founding, and always being open to people of color.

Please define 'woke.'

 

[jbg]

While the idea is right, the example is bad. Cornell is fighting a straw man and not addressing the request of the student. "Trigger warnings" don't infringe on academic freedom and are not comparable with cancelling or book banning.

Only the precursor to "cancelling or book banning."

 

[Heyo]

Only the precursor to "cancelling or book banning."

Your fallacy is: