• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Coddling of the American Mind

I also don't disagree that those who can grow are opposed to the concept of safe spaces. That being said, their self-interest isn't altogether without a point.
Well, I think self-interest always has a point, but I just don't always respect or care about that point.
 
the problem with shielding our buds is that eventually they have to blossom into reality. the only shield you have in reality is the shield you make for yourself. if you've been shielded by others in a protective bubble for your entire upbringing, reality is going to be a major shock. for example, this whole bullying fight, people really think bullying ends with high-school? you deal with idiots like that your entire life, learning to deal with them young is how you keep them from causing you harm in the 'adult world' where their actions could really harm you. we're raising an entire generation that has no idea how to cope.

I think we are. Sometimes you just actually have to experience anxiety and also failure and other unpleasant realities.
 
the problem with shielding our buds is that eventually they have to blossom into reality. the only shield you have in reality is the shield you make for yourself. if you've been shielded by others in a protective bubble for your entire upbringing, reality is going to be a major shock. for example, this whole bullying fight, people really think bullying ends with high-school? you deal with idiots like that your entire life, learning to deal with them young is how you keep them from causing you harm in the 'adult world' where their actions could really harm you. we're raising an entire generation that has no idea how to cope.

The bullying issue is substantially different, in that the workplace can often be more receptive (not including legally required) to stopping a hostile work environment than the schools are (after all, managers want work to get done and an unnecessarily distracted or distraught workplace is not going to get you there). In some sense, we forget that these are hostile audiences and children rather than adults. On top of that, adult workers are able to have more social protections given the attitude of management toward wanting people to cut the crap and do their job.

That being said, yes, there is indeed value in having to deal with expected stressors or failures.
 
I thought this was going to be about american conservatives, like the fact we coddle them by saying "support our troops", or "climate science might not be real", or "sure jesus and santa are white" and that we can't have any progress in america because it might piss off all the hillfolk
 
Well, I think self-interest always has a point, but I just don't always respect or care about that point.

I tend to view higher education a bit more traditionally in that its stated goal of a bazaar of intellectual curiosities.

For me, Peter Singer, Harvey Mansfield, and Michel Lind all have a place in the academy without the need for social hostilities whenever they speak. No matter how I feel about any of them (and one of them I abhor as a human being), being challenged is important for intellectual growth. Institutions of higher education and learning, not a political convention.
 
I tend to view higher education a bit more traditionally in that its stated goal of a bazaar of intellectual curiosities.

For me, Peter Singer, Harvey Mansfield, and Michel Lind all have a place in the academy without the need for social hostilities whenever they speak. No matter how I feel about any of them (and one of them I abhor as a human being), being challenged is important for intellectual growth. Institutions of higher education and learning, not a political convention.
1. I view higher education in the same way. In fact, I chose my alma mater specifically because it was dedicated to "the life of the mind" - because it encouraged students and professors to relentlessly read, learn, debate, interrogate and challenge themselves intellectually. And, while I read the texts of horrible people with horrible ideas, I did not need my university to provide a platform to a bigot or to a war criminal to be "challenged" or to "grow intellectually". There are ways to understand horrible ideas and horrible people without legitimizing either.

2. I agree that universities are for learning rather than political convention. I do not think, however, that refusing to give certain people a platform is always a matter of political convention. For instance, refusing to give a bigot a platform is based in more than mere political convention. In fact, I think that describing it as such would be a gross minimization of the motive behind such an exclusion. I also do not think that listening to a bigot necessarily challenges anyone or contributes to intellectual growth. I do, however, believe that students should be required to read the works of bigots so that they learn to face such ugliness rather than be allowed pretend it isn't there.
 
I don't believe I asked you

And yet I answered you. Why? Because this was the second post in which you made clear that you hadn't read the article on which the OP is based and asked questions which are explained by that article. If you have an intent other than post-total building and dropping into the conversation only to distract, I hope you'll make a better effort.
 
1. I view higher education in the same way. In fact, I chose my alma mater specifically because it was dedicated to "the life of the mind" - because it encouraged students and professors to relentlessly read, learn, debate, interrogate and challenge themselves intellectually. And, while I read the texts of horrible people with horrible ideas, I did not need my university to provide a platform to a bigot or to a war criminal to be "challenged" or to "grow intellectually". There are ways to understand horrible ideas and horrible people without legitimizing either.

2. I agree that universities are for learning rather than political convention. I do not think, however, that refusing to give certain people a platform is always a matter of political convention. For instance, refusing to give a bigot a platform is based in more than mere political convention. In fact, I think that describing it as such would be a gross minimization of the motive behind such an exclusion. I also do not think that listening to a bigot necessarily challenges anyone or contributes to intellectual growth. I do, however, believe that students should be required to read the works of bigots so that they learn to face such ugliness rather than be allowed pretend it isn't there.

The intellectual life of a university hinges on freedom of thought and contrarian ideas. Disinviting speakers whose views oppose yours is cowardly. And I strongly disagree with your opinion on intellectual growth. I don't know whether you're old enough to remember Dr. William Shockley, but when I was an undergrad I attended this Nobel prize-winner's debate during which he attempted to prove that Africans and African-Americans were genetically inferior. SRO crowd, of course, and to this day one of the more illuminating debates I've heard, one which crystallized my one thinking on this issue.
 
The intellectual life of a university hinges on freedom of thought and contrarian ideas. Disinviting speakers whose views oppose yours is cowardly. And I strongly disagree with your opinion on intellectual growth. I don't know whether you're old enough to remember Dr. William Shockley, but when I was an undergrad I attended this Nobel prize-winner's debate during which he attempted to prove that Africans and African-Americans were genetically inferior. SRO crowd, of course, and to this day one of the more illuminating debates I've heard, one which crystallized my one thinking on this issue.

Oh Shockley, you eccentric racist, ableist bastard. :mrgreen:

You can't forget the man's eugenic philosophy tying it all together!
 
1. I view higher education in the same way. In fact, I chose my alma mater specifically because it was dedicated to "the life of the mind" - because it encouraged students and professors to relentlessly read, learn, debate, interrogate and challenge themselves intellectually. And, while I read the texts of horrible people with horrible ideas, I did not need my university to provide a platform to a bigot or to a war criminal to be "challenged" or to "grow intellectually". There are ways to understand horrible ideas and horrible people without legitimizing either.

2. I agree that universities are for learning rather than political convention. I do not think, however, that refusing to give certain people a platform is always a matter of political convention. For instance, refusing to give a bigot a platform is based in more than mere political convention. In fact, I think that describing it as such would be a gross minimization of the motive behind such an exclusion. I also do not think that listening to a bigot necessarily challenges anyone or contributes to intellectual growth. I do, however, believe that students should be required to read the works of bigots so that they learn to face such ugliness rather than be allowed pretend it isn't there.

Plenty of persons have difficulty with the concept of being exposed to the writings of certain objectionable persons. So perhaps your willingness to do so should be acknowledged. However, The university would not be providing any different of an avenue of legitimacy than already exists with the reading assigned.

"The views expressed by so and so are solely the views held by so and so and are not representative of the opinions held by Body X."

It's a rather sensible philosophy that shares ideas and encourages intellectual challenge and debate without necessarily suggesting that they either endorse the views expressed or seek to prohibit their expression in civilized discourse.

Therefore, a well-known and worthwhile Communist should be afforded the same opportunities that an ardent capitalist or imperialist could come to expect, and vice versa.

I find your criteria to be too easily manipulated for the sake of political comfort or resistance. "War criminal" in common parlance, for instance, would hold that Henry Kissinger should be outlawed, because a number of Leftists would be so offended. Likewise, a group of conservatives, should they be so motivated, would pitch a fit if a sympathizer of Che or Castro were to speak.

Expand that outward to something that both of us would be sympathetic to: minority groups. Now, at the university, it is fairly difficult to claim that some of the most typical groups would be silenced, but let's say it was possible. Is that the sort of environment that we wish to exist?
 
Oh Shockley, you eccentric racist, ableist bastard. :mrgreen:

You can't forget the man's eugenic philosophy tying it all together!

When I think of the genius sperm bank, I recall this line from Proverbs: "Man proposes...God disposes." ;)
 
The intellectual life of a university hinges on freedom of thought and contrarian ideas.
I agree completely. Two of my favorite parts of college were 1) the fact that each one of my professors made a point to present us with as many perspectives on a single issue that they could find and 2) the fact that they essentially forced students to debate professors and other students. Professors loved dissent.

Disinviting speakers whose views oppose yours is cowardly.
I don't agree with disinviting speakers simply because they have views that oppose yours. I agree that that is moral and intellectual cowardice. I do not, however, have a problem with disinviting people whose ideas go beyond mere disagreement and enter into bigotry, violence or similarly serious issues.

And I strongly disagree with your opinion on intellectual growth. I don't know whether you're old enough to remember Dr. William Shockley, but when I was an undergrad I attended this Nobel prize-winner's debate during which he attempted to prove that Africans and African-Americans were genetically inferior. SRO crowd, of course, and to this day one of the more illuminating debates I've heard, one which crystallized my one thinking on this issue.
We will never agree on this issue. I have no problem with students reading and discussing such views. I have no problem with professors having themselves or students play the part of the bigot within the class. However, I do have a problem with giving a platform to bigots by permitting them to feed their egos and their bank accounts by inviting them to speak on college campuses. It's great that you learned something from the Shockley debate, but I think you would have learned just as much by reading his arguments and interrogating them within a college classroom lead by an effective instructor. There are plenty of people who manage to figure out the bigotry is wrong without attending a lecture by a bigot. Universities should employ those methods instead.
 
I hope that you aren't suggesting that only those views that are acceptable to you are acceptable. If a university-approved group invites a speaker, I think that should be a done-deal with all free not to attend as they please. But disinviting someone--Condoleeza Rice, for example--who has already been invited is classless and chicken****.
 
Subtitle: In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.

This is a thoughtful article on campus-trendy “microaggressions” and “trigger warnings” that defines “vindictive protectiveness” and its consequences to critical thinking. It also discusses the successful principles of cognitive behavioral therapy and the dangers of the collegiate embrace of “emotional reasoning.” Here are excerpts:

...The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse.

…Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation if student expectations of safety are carried forward. And they are bad for American democracy, which is already paralyzed by worsening partisanship. When the ideas, values, and speech of the other side are seen not just as wrong but as willfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed to make politics a positive-sum game.

Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control. One of the great truths taught by Buddhism (and Stoicism, Hinduism, and many other traditions) is that you can never achieve happiness by making the world conform to your desires. But you can master your desires and habits of thought. How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus - The Atlantic

I think a lot has to do with these zero policy rules in school (starting with the young kids). For instance, I think it's great that schools have to do things about students getting bullied in school, however, it is never a common sense thing with zero policy rules. Just the other day, a student of mine was called to the office for an "investigation". Later, I found out the reason. A student had told another that they didn't like the new sneakers they had and they looked like boy sneakers and he was a witness. Really!? We have to do a full investigation on something so silly. TG the student didn't say something like it makes you look like a boy. They probably would have labeled him with a hate crime. Kids now report the most mundane things and one has to wonder is it for attention or are their feelings really like glass ready to shatter at any moment? Now we have the adults acting like idiots filling out mountains of paperwork trying to figure out if the student has issues.....yeah, it's called being a kid.
 
Plenty of persons have difficulty with the concept of being exposed to the writings of certain objectionable persons. So perhaps your willingness to do so should be acknowledged. However, The university would not be providing any different of an avenue of legitimacy than already exists with the reading assigned.

"The views expressed by so and so are solely the views held by so and so and are not representative of the opinions held by Body X."
The bold is untrue. When students are instructed to read a text by a bigot, the students engage with each other and their professor to discuss the bigot's perspective. When a bigot gives a lecture, the bigot himself engages with the student body. The latter circumstances lines his pockets, bolsters his ego and gives him a position of authority that merely reading his words does not. Even further, the disclaimer you provide - widely used as it is - does little to nothing to counter these effects of inviting someone to speak at a university. Endorsing a view is not the same as giving it legitimacy. Merely engaging with a view gives it legitimacy.

It's a rather sensible philosophy that shares ideas and encourages intellectual challenge and debate without necessarily suggesting that they either endorse the views expressed or seek to prohibit their expression in civilized discourse.
Again, endorsing a view is not the same as giving it legitimacy. I'm talking about legitimacy. I would also argue that certain views are inherently uncivilized, including racism and misogyny. I don't subscribe to the philosophy that it's okay to express any view as long as it presented "politely" or "intellectually".

Therefore, a well-known and worthwhile Communist should be afforded the same opportunities that an ardent capitalist or imperialist could come to expect, and vice versa.

I find your criteria to be too easily manipulated for the sake of political comfort or resistance.
Every philosophy can be easily manipulated to bad ends. Your philosophy, which has been the dominant one up until now, too easily allows bigotry and other harmful ideas to be perpetuated under the guise of "civilized discourse" and "intellectual curiosity". Racists, misogynists and other harmful people love that philosophy because it allows them to advocate the mistreatment of black people, women and others as long as they stop foaming at the mouth long enough to dress up their language to match the style of their audience.

"War criminal" in common parlance, for instance, would hold that Henry Kissinger should be outlawed, because a number of Leftists would be so offended. Likewise, a group of conservatives, should they be so motivated, would pitch a fit if a sympathizer of Che or Castro were to speak.
I should be clear that I don't believe that opposing a speaker is justified merely because students are offended. Students should be able to demonstrate the speaker or her view has caused, is causing or will cause measurable harm to people, particularly marginalized groups. For instance, if a doctor who performs abortions was invited to speak at a conservative Christian college and students protested the invitation, I would consider their protest permissible even though I am pro-choice because abortions cause measurable harm.

Expand that outward to something that both of us would be sympathetic to: minority groups. Now, at the university, it is fairly difficult to claim that some of the most typical groups would be silenced, but let's say it was possible. Is that the sort of environment that we wish to exist?
Now, I don't wish to exist in an environment that allows minority groups to be silenced, but I also do not wish to exist in an environment that gives money and platform to the very people who advocate prejudicial and illogical views against those groups.
 
I think a lot has to do with these zero policy rules in school (starting with the young kids). For instance, I think it's great that schools have to do things about students getting bullied in school, however, it is never a common sense thing with zero policy rules. Just the other day, a student of mine was called to the office for an "investigation". Later, I found out the reason. A student had told another that they didn't like the new sneakers they had and they looked like boy sneakers and he was a witness. Really!? We have to do a full investigation on something so silly. TG the student didn't say something like it makes you look like a boy. They probably would have labeled him with a hate crime. Kids now report the most mundane things and one has to wonder is it for attention or are their feelings really like glass ready to shatter at any moment? Now we have the adults acting like idiots filling out mountains of paperwork trying to figure out if the student has issues.....yeah, it's called being a kid.

Color me appalled--it's worse than I thought. A sneaker-insult investigation. Yikes.

You know, I don't wish children to be robbed of their childhoods, and I wanted to protect my kids from meanies and cooties and scary adult stuff. How are these fragile flowers going to survive in that grownup world, the one where bad things happen to good people and mean people suck?
 
Color me appalled--it's worse than I thought. A sneaker-insult investigation. Yikes.

You know, I don't wish children to be robbed of their childhoods, and I wanted to protect my kids from meanies and cooties and scary adult stuff. How are these fragile flowers going to survive in that grownup world, the one where bad things happen to good people and mean people suck?

I know.

I believe a lot of the student advocates that are responsible for pushing this trigger stuff may have lived through some type of traumatic experience, but have never really healed with proper intervention. Now nearly anything can be a trigger. That's not a healthy way to live nor have others live.
 
I know.

I believe a lot of the student advocates that are responsible for pushing this trigger stuff may have lived through some type of traumatic experience, but have never really healed with proper intervention. Now nearly anything can be a trigger. That's not a healthy way to live nor have others live.

By "student advocates" I'm assuming you mean the adults. It's very common for those who've endured a trauma or tragedy to want to channel what's happened into positive action, but that can't be most people pushing this. I think the best that can be said is that this is ridiculous "overprotectiveness" and that it's very unhealthy.

Ask any mom about sending her kid off to school for the first time--introducing him or setting her free in a world outside the familiar--society--where there are other rules/expectations (such as sitting still and being quiet for long periods) and where there are people who aren't just like you, some of them not nice.

You're out there in the field, so you tell me where this fear of being "upset" began. How ridiculous for law students to be so sensitive that they don't think they should have to study rape law. Referring back to the quoted analogy I posted earlier, it's stupid if you're a surgeon in training to be afraid that you might see blood.
 
By "student advocates" I'm assuming you mean the adults. It's very common for those who've endured a trauma or tragedy to want to channel what's happened into positive action, but that can't be most people pushing this. I think the best that can be said is that this is ridiculous "overprotectiveness" and that it's very unhealthy.

Ask any mom about sending her kid off to school for the first time--introducing him or setting her free in a world outside the familiar--society--where there are other rules/expectations (such as sitting still and being quiet for long periods) and where there are people who aren't just like you, some of them not nice.

You're out there in the field, so you tell me where this fear of being "upset" began. How ridiculous for law students to be so sensitive that they don't think they should have to study rape law. Referring back to the quoted analogy I posted earlier, it's stupid if you're a surgeon in training to be afraid that you might see blood.

I simply call it avoidance behavior. It's not healthy, but seems a particular generation has gone that direction.
 
The bullying issue is substantially different, in that the workplace can often be more receptive (not including legally required) to stopping a hostile work environment than the schools are (after all, managers want work to get done and an unnecessarily distracted or distraught workplace is not going to get you there). In some sense, we forget that these are hostile audiences and children rather than adults. On top of that, adult workers are able to have more social protections given the attitude of management toward wanting people to cut the crap and do their job.

That being said, yes, there is indeed value in having to deal with expected stressors or failures.
This particular issue has evolved into a form of bullying itself.
 
Subtitle: In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.

This is a thoughtful article on campus-trendy “microaggressions” and “trigger warnings” that defines “vindictive protectiveness” and its consequences to critical thinking. It also discusses the successful principles of cognitive behavioral therapy and the dangers of the collegiate embrace of “emotional reasoning.” Here are excerpts:

...The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse.

…Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation if student expectations of safety are carried forward. And they are bad for American democracy, which is already paralyzed by worsening partisanship. When the ideas, values, and speech of the other side are seen not just as wrong but as willfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed to make politics a positive-sum game.

Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control. One of the great truths taught by Buddhism (and Stoicism, Hinduism, and many other traditions) is that you can never achieve happiness by making the world conform to your desires. But you can master your desires and habits of thought. How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus - The Atlantic
One of the more common complaints regarding this stuff is that is doesn't prepare these students for the so-called "real world". We never hear about what happens to these students who make these types of protests after they graduate. Do they merge into the real world just fine? Or, do they continue to feel marginalized, but with nobody to enable their grievances, get lost in the shuffle?
 
Back
Top Bottom