College takes the stand against trigger warnings

[Hibush]

Hmmm... I get that there are different institutional realities at nonelite schools vs the Ivies of the world, but I am wondering, does anyone know what the relative percentage of tt faculty who actually obtain tenure at the Cornells of the world is, vs. the percentage at places like Northeast State Tech?  IOW, many such faculty at the big boys may well think that they would have a real reason to dummy up and get with the program... esp because, well, students at such places are probably much more likely to come up with trigger warning proposals such as that developed by the Cornell student council, as opposed to those at NE St Tech.

While Harvard has an infamously low tenure rate, I think other elites have pretty normal ones. Those schools have the opportunity to hire extremely competent people with high tenure potential, and then invest a lot of resources into their early years. Having a low tenure rate in that circumstance doesn't lead to a strong program.

Selective schools get a lot of students who have had success all their lives; some of them are pretty entitled. That experience sometimes leads them to make demands that the faculty find inappropriate (such as mandating trigger warnings). The tenured faculty tend to humor the students a bit but not acquiesce. Untenured faculty who do the same are not risking tenure denial.

@Mleok, do you ever feel administrative pressure to dumb down for the purpose of retention? Most UCs have a waiting list  of really good students, so enrollment loss isn't top of mind.