Christina WarrenGood. Cornell did the right thing here but I’ll admit to being (pleasantly)surprised it was this resolute. If an individual professor wants to do content warnings as a courtesy, fine. But trying to make that mandatory is not OK. #xp https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/12/nyregion/cornell-student-assembly-trigger-warnings.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
I know this is impulse but I fundamentally don’t agree with trigger warnings as a concept. I’ll try to honor them/respect people who need them if I know in advance, but I fundamentally don’t believe in them. I’m glad Cornell pushed back.
This shit started when I was in college and I don’t think it has had a positive effect on anyone. If anything, the ability to guard ourselves from anything potentially upsetting has made us more polarized and less able to connect with one another or to truly understand and empathize with trauma.
Jack the Lion@film_girl With all due respect, you're sounding a bit like an early onset boomer by saying it's valuable having people face things that activate PTSD in them.
In my opinion CWs are a net positive. If you don't need em, ignore em. If you do, I'm glad it's there for you.
@Jackthelion I mean, exposure therapy is literally one of the best ways to treat PTSD and obv. I’m not conflating the two things but let’s not pretend there is a medical reason for CWs. There isn’t. If people want to use CWs, that’s fine. And as I said, I’ll always defer to kindness. But trying to make it mandatory in a college setting is absolutely stupid. I’m a millennial. This shit started with us and I’ve been consistent in my unease about it for years.
Larry Garfield@film_girl Yes, exposure therapy is very useful. But subjecting someone to therapy without their consent is ethically wrong on many levels.
If someone wants to use a book with a triggering topic for exposure therapy purposes, great, that could work really well. But it should be their choice, not something to be surprised at in the middle of doing homework.
The devil is in the details on this sort of thing.
@Crell I was being glib and specifically said I wasn’t conflating the two ideas together. The truth is, studies show that trigger warnings don’t work or if anything, make things worse. If a professor wants to offer warnings at their discretion, that’s fine. Trying to make it a requirement is a clear assault not just on academic freedom of speech but on actually teaching many important subjects
@film_girl I don't see how it's an "assault on academic freedom", unless you're arguing that surprising someone with a rape scene in a book or extreme gore in a movie has specific academic value in itself. I absolutely agree to can go overboard, though. I don't know that is support requiring alternate assignments, for instance. That does feel excessive.
I'd be interested in seeing those studies you mention.
@Crell it’s an absolute assault on academic freedom to limit what can or cannot be said in a classroom. Like, that’s basic first amendment stuff (and yes, this is a 1A subject b/c it is about academic institutions)
Even the Cornell professors who have previously fervently supported trigger warnings in the classroom have also said that forcing it is a clear violation of academic freedom. See next post for studies.
Studies:
Summary: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/trigger-warnings-distress.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190319142312.htm
(Same study but a more concise abstract)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005791618301137#bib7
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-25347-001 (follow-on study)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702620921341
(2020 study focusing on individuals with trauma histories)
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-if-trigger-warnings-dont-work#:~:text=Most%20of%20the%20flurry%20of,the%20distress%20of%20negative%20memories (Harvard prof analysis of a lot of the studies over the last few years)
@film_girl Thanks.