As the Cornell trigger warning saga unfolds this week in local and national media, it has become increasingly apparent that SA Resolution 31 was a frivolous proposal made by an assembly that does not seriously represent students’ interests.
The Sun’s April 8 article on trigger warnings, “University Rejects Student Assembly Proposal for Content Warnings in Classrooms” includes comments from Student Assembly (SA) representatives Clair Ting and Shelby Williams, the sponsors of Resolution 31. Williams attempted to duck accountability for the resolution by claiming she didn’t draft it, though she still appended her name to the resolution’s text, indicating her sponsorship.
The interview with Williams and Ting is quite revealing because it shows how poorly the SA handled Resolution 31. According to Ting, the resolution’s impetus was one incident involving one student. After being sponsored by Ting and Williams, the resolution was then adopted by the SA Academic Affairs Committee and the full SA, unanimously. As an additional safeguard, SA resolutions are supposed to be posted before each meeting, so that concerned students can object during the SA’s public comment period. However, because the resolution was not posted in a timely fashion before the March 23 meeting, no students could have voiced objections at that meeting.
Further, Williams was “surprised that [President Pollack’s] rejection was so fervent.” The sponsors’ unpreparedness for the strong response to Resolution 31 indicates that they did not consult the provost’s office or faculty before prescribing a blanket classroom regulation, heedless of the potential ramifications for academic freedom.
Trigger warnings have numerous adverse consequences for academic freedom, as President Pollack and Provost Kotlikoff eloquently laid out in their rejection letter. Specifically, the requirement would force professors to anticipate and warn against countless potentially traumatic topics, limit students in their ability to explore ideas for fear of venturing into traumatic territory, and intellectually coddle students by allowing them not to engage with difficult topics.
Then there is the issue of accountability. Instead of owning up to the resolution, representatives Ting and Williams accused national news outlets of “misinterpreting” and “mischaracterizing” their resolution. In reality, Ting and Williams seem to be the only ones guilty of misrepresentation.
Indulging in recurrent equivocation, Ting and Williams attempt to pass off the resolution as merely advising professors on how to handle disturbing content. Throughout their remarks they refer to the resolution as “instilling the idea of a best practice,” a “recommendation for a strong suggestion,” a “guideline” and a “request.”
However, the intent of Resolution 31, as the title “Mandating Content Warnings for Traumatic Content in the Classroom,” suggests, was a requirement. If the resolution were seeking a guideline or a recommendation, the word ‘mandate’ wouldn’t have been anywhere in the document.
The resolution’s abstract reads: “Urging university officials to require instructors who present graphic traumatic content that may trigger the onset of symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to provide advance notice to students and refrain from penalizing students who opt out of exposure to such content.” [emphasis added]
“Mandate” and “require” are very different from “recommend” or “suggest.” The former are enforced, the latter encouraged. When something is mandated, a person is forced to do that thing by an authority. When it is simply suggested, the person may or may not do that thing, even if it is encouraged. Williams attempts to obfuscate this point by noting that the resolution did not prescribe an enforcement mechanism for instructors who failed to comply with the mandate.
“Now, you’ll notice that there isn’t any type of punishment or penalty for not including that — that’s not something that we even considered, trying to derive the power to enforce,” said Williams, “But I think it’s, again, a recommendation for a strong suggestion for professors to put forth.”
Williams is trying to convince readers that the SA was cleverly making its mandate unenforceable and therefore really a recommendation. However, the SA’s clear goal was for the university to “require” content warnings. Given the breadth of Policy 6.4, how could such a requirement not be enforceable once it was adopted?
Consider Cornell’s infamous masking and testing mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Neither of those policies were optional, nor would anyone think they were, because they were called mandates (or requirements).
If the resolution really were just recommendation, then it would be redundant. Cornell already encourages instructors to be considerate. As President Pollack said in her rejection letter: “Common courtesy would suggest that in some cases faculty may wish to provide notice, whether via the course syllabus or in the classroom, when they will be addressing topics that some may find challenging or painful.” What change did sponsors of the SA resolution seek, if not to turn this encouragement and “common courtesy” into a hardline requirement? The answer is in the resolution, which specifically attacks the absence of a “standard requirement for instructors at Cornell to provide content warnings for triggering classroom content.”
Additionally, the resolution’s sponsors did not account for the considerable debate about the effectiveness of trigger warnings. Trigger warnings have been the subject of contentious national controversy and are by no means a sure method for dealing with trauma. New studies on the issue suggest that trigger warnings have little effect, and may even negatively impact those with PTSD.
Has the SA learned from this episode? Williams is already promising to “rearticulate” the resolution and calling the issue an ”ongoing conversation.” Perhaps President Pollack will have to reject trigger warnings again.
Williams is one of the SA’s representatives sitting on the University Assembly. It is interesting that Williams never proposed her resolution for adoption by that student-faculty-staff group. If Williams believed ”the goal was to work in conjunction with the Faculty Senate to advise professors and other instructors to include such warnings in their curriculum,” why did she not use her voice on the University Assembly to raise her discussion beyond just students?
Ting is currently a candidate for SA Executive Vice President and Williams is a candidate for re-election as the SA Representative to the University Assembly.
The SA has embarrassed itself, students, and the university in national media, and the attempts by the resolution’s sponsors to spin the criticism as “misrepresentation” aren’t making them look any better. The current representatives were elected with about 10% voter turnout from students, and many are up for re-election this spring. This incident should serve as a warning to Cornell students to pay closer attention to who they’re electing to student office. If they will not, then perhaps the SA should be abolished before it can embarrass the students again.
This story was updated to include context about the University Assembly.
