Your Cart is Empty
Trigger warnings were proposed as a means to protect students with PTSD. Not only do they fail to do that, but they undermine the resilience of all Cornellians and risk encouraging cognitive distortions commonly observed in mentally ill patients.
We Cornellians are the leaders of tomorrow. As leaders, we will be forced to come face to face with challenges that involve emotionally-charged ideas relating to race, transgenderism, abortions, suicide, and sexual assault. The degree to which we use our critical thinking skills to solve these problems will affect millions of people, so it is imperative that we show up prepared. Becoming offended, playing the moral high ground, and banning dialogue on certain “untouchable” issues that make us uncomfortable won’t make the problems go away.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
The Department of Defense has directed a group of 30 research-focused universities to conduct an “immediate and comprehensive” audit of their partnerships with foreign institutions that it says could be a threat to national security.
Each university has until the end of the month to submit its findings and terminate any relationships found to be “problematic,” the department said in a news release last Monday. Any university that does not comply could lose federal research funding.
At many American universities, progressive assumptions seem embedded in the machinery of campus life. Left-wing speakers and views are applauded, while conservative views (on abortion, for example) are often treated as beyond the pale.
Yet mission statements and promotional materials tend to describe the university’s purpose in nonpartisan terms. When studies show the dearth of right-leaning faculty, administrations typically insist this is just the result of neutral search processes. A gap has opened between the impartial, truth-seeking role universities claim for themselves and the policies they pursue.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon recently released a “National Call to Action to University Presidents and Governing Boards,” a less openly threatening version of the earlier “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” that had been broadly rejected. More than a month prior to the release of McMahon’s letter, Vanderbilt University published “The University and Its Purpose: A Declaration of First Principles,” signed by its chancellor and board chair and adopted by its board.
Whether this alignment is the result of happenstance or collaboration is impossible to know, but what is clear is the extent to which Vanderbilt is positioning itself as a model of the sort of elite higher education of which the Trump administration approves. This does not, prima facie, make the Vanderbilt model wrong, but, given the stakes, it does suggest that the model should be examined with great care.
