The Coddling of the American Mind

[nota bene]

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

 

[Gardener]

The very neologism "microaggression" is not only silly, but revealing as to the degree of lock-step conformity it demands. It's almost as if its creators set out to reveal that they were having to look harder and harder and harder for reasons to be offended. Yes, by all means lets keep looking to the point you have to enter the micro realm.

I'm sure looking forward to the next evolution in identity politics -- the world of subatomicaggression. Coming to a politically correct theatre near you summer of 2020.

 

[nota bene]

I think I'm going to take anticipatory and preemptive offense at your post...just in case I feel frightened or disturbed later. :mrgreen:

 

[Aunt Spiker]

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

How trigger warnings are hurting?

I don't think a TV show (for example - because TV shows have been doing this freely for decades) saying 'this show includes content that might be disturbing to some individuals, viewer discretion is advised' is bad or even a form of pandering. I think it's the excessive extremes - the whole: "you don't like this - therefor I will not write / produce this" and "I don't like this - therefor - you should not make this" that's doing real harm.

I'm an author so I contend with this often. It's weak-stomached and is a passive attempt to turn the entire world and entertainment into a pillow of warm cushiony happiness.

However, I didn't become an author to pansy to people. I became and author to stuff people's pillows with tacks so they can't seep at night.

And it reminds me of a debate I had a few years ago with a group of authors whom were arguing with me about my LACK of trigger warnings. One used the anecdote of a friend of hers in highschool whose best friend had committed suicide - and the day after the funeral they watched the last half of Romeo and Juliet and it caused her serious emotional heartbreak during class.

Well she should have been advised ahead of time, you see (because Romeo and Juliet beginning by addressing the doomed state of R and J wasn't warning enough.)

But that's the POINT.

The entire point of Romeo and Juliet is to appreciate life - see life in a new way - because of their suicide. The purpose behind good writing is to slap you across the neutral face and wake you the hell up. If a book doesn't do that then the author's not doing their job.

 

[Gardener]

I think I'm going to take anticipatory and preemptive offense at your post...just in case I feel frightened or disturbed later. :mrgreen:

"Later"? what do you mean "later"?

As a member of the "be here now" minority, I am highly offended by your implication that the notion of time with a past and a future is anything but an artificial construct designed by the man to oppress those of us who live in the present.

Take it back, or I swear I will have no recourse but to ball up my pudgy little fists into a veritable explosion of indignation!

 

[Northern Light]

I understand where the author of this article is coming from, but I question that this is a "movement" or that it's impacting mental health adversely.

My understanding of trigger warnings is that it usually relates to discussions or content which display violence, rape, or content which may affect trauma or abuse survivors. And it's usually practiced in safe spaces, not in the world at large.

Beyond that, the word "trigger" is abused by people pushing political agendas. I've seen it misused across many different social groups, to my chagrin. People accuse others of triggering them in order to bypass the need to form real arguments or employ critical thinking. It's also used to censor ideas by overstating the sensitivity levels of social groups (i.e. "we shouldn't discuss that subject because it may trigger trauma survivors" vs. "if we discuss that topic, we should tread carefully and choose our words wisely because of the potential audience".)

Safe spaces on college campuses are useful because you have many different groups and belief systems converging on campuses, and safe spaces serve as environments where interpersonal awareness is heightened. They also tend to have heightened levels of confidentiality. This is useful. Those environments should, by necessity, teach ethics about language and triggering others. If people don't agree then they don't have to participate, or they can form their own groups with differing standards.

I don't think it should be pushed as a whole-campus policy though, only because some topics are challenging by their very nature and it's important that we be able to discuss them maturely. People who are using the concept of triggering to censor others don't actually understand the concept of safe space. Oppression runs contrary to safe space. It's actually supposed to be about freedom of speech with increased sensitivity and active listening, and not topic avoidance altogether.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

But - what I think has really done the MOST harm is that students make these silly demands - and often people GIVE IN. Case in point would be Striking all words that used 'man' or 'men' from LEGAL documents: Penmanship = handwriting. Chairman = chairperson.

You know - for the sensitive feminists (rolls eyes)

 

[nota bene]

But - what I think has really done the MOST harm is that students make these silly demands - and often people GIVE IN. Case in point would be Striking all words that used 'man' or 'men' from LEGAL documents: Penmanship = handwriting. Chairman = chairperson.

You know - for the sensitive feminists (rolls eyes)

<snicker> You mean "womyn."

 

[nota bene]

But - what I think has really done the MOST harm is that students make these silly demands - and often people GIVE IN. Case in point would be Striking all words that used 'man' or 'men' from LEGAL documents: Penmanship = handwriting. Chairman = chairperson.

You know - for the sensitive feminists (rolls eyes)

I'd read this before, but the article discusses the law students who don't want to be taught rape law because it's so distressing. The comparison is made of trying to teach “a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he’ll become distressed if he sees or handles blood.”

Also from the article:

It should be no surprise that students are exhibiting similar sensitivity. At the University of Central Florida in 2013, for example, Hyung-il Jung, an accounting instructor, was suspended after a student reported that Jung had made a threatening comment during a review session. Jung explained to the Orlando Sentinel that the material he was reviewing was difficult, and he’d noticed the pained look on students’ faces, so he made a joke. “It looks like you guys are being slowly suffocated by these questions,” he recalled saying. “Am I on a killing spree or what?”

After the student reported Jung’s comment, a group of nearly 20 others e-mailed the UCF administration explaining that the comment had clearly been made in jest. Nevertheless, UCF suspended Jung from all university duties and demanded that he obtain written certification from a mental-health professional that he was “not a threat to [himself] or to the university community” before he would be allowed to return to campus.

This is insane, in my opinion. I've a friend who's a former FBI agent and attorney who decided to take an academic gig teaching government until his kids finished high school and who even won a teaching excellence award. He has now returned, in disgust, to the practice of law. Why? What was his crime? He called on students in class.

Oh, the horror! And two young ladies were very, very upset at having been called upon, and so my friend was hauled in and ordered by his boss-of-all-bosses to never call on students again unless he notified them in advance and gave them the questions. True story.

 

[instagramsci]

What we should do is not ever warn students that there may be graphic descriptions or depictions of rape in their class material. Who cares if they're victims of sexual assault. Flooding is an approved psychological technique right

 

[nota bene]

What we should do is not ever warn students that there may be graphic descriptions or depictions of rape in their class material. Who cares if they're victims of sexual assault. Flooding is an approved psychological technique right

No, we should never warn students about graphic materials, no one cares if they've been victims of sexual assault, and whatever "flooding" is, it's bad.

I'm being facetious here in the face of your silly hyperbole. Have you even read the article linked in the OP, or were you just feeling the need to cast a little heat rather than light?

 

[Goshin]

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

Dear and fluffy Hulk Hogan, just reading that makes me want to go find one of these weenies and punch him in the mouth, and give him a taste of what I call "microaggression". :doh:

 

[Fiddytree]

Trigger warnings are a necessity in some circles of life. In the humanities, it is hopelessly redundant.

Safe spaces are also a necessity in some circles, however, in higher education they frequently insulate students from intellectual growth and even intelligent certitude.

 

[instagramsci]

they frequently insulate students from intellectual growth and even intelligent certitude.

explain how

 

[Fiddytree]

The very neologism "microaggression" is not only silly, but revealing as to the degree of lock-step conformity it demands. It's almost as if its creators set out to reveal that they were having to look harder and harder and harder for reasons to be offended. Yes, by all means lets keep looking to the point you have to enter the micro realm.

I'm sure looking forward to the next evolution in identity politics -- the world of subatomicaggression. Coming to a politically correct theatre near you summer of 2020.

Microaggression is a purposefully flamboyant terminology. It has a useful intellectual formulation, but it seems to subscribe to the notion that one must amp up legitimate social grievances for the sake of eventually changing it. The louder you scream, apparently the more likely someone will pay attention and give you what you want. It still may look petty, despite whatever results come from it.

The concept itself is incredibly useful, but can overstate the importance for advocates working on otherwise substantial issues.

 

[Fiddytree]

explain how

If accepted, it encourages inhibiting the most gifted future advocates from dealing with the issues head on and getting a better sense for how these structures work. Difficult to deal with at first, certainly. However, without pushing on, there's very little that one can do to improve their own capability. I've had to put on many hats in order to grow. Doing so not only challenged me and made me smarter, it also increased my ability to pursue change.

It also allows any number of groups (whether they truly are oppressed or not) to claim they deserve the ability to plug their ears and go "la la la." Let's remember that the oppressed classes deal with intersectionality. Despite paths crossing over, any number of individual groups can refuse to hear the grievances of another group.

Let's use a historical example. In the early to mid-1960's, you had a number of young radicals who were campaigning for African American civil rights and anti-war issues. However, when you had, for instance, women in the mixture, the men simply ignored them and their issues. Similar happened with the gay and lesbian movement.

Rather than encourage debate and confrontation with legitimate grievances, it reinforces segregation. People stay in their bubbles, because being comforted rarely means growing and increasing social justice.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

But - what I think has really done the MOST harm is that students make these silly demands - and often people GIVE IN. Case in point would be Striking all words that used 'man' or 'men' from LEGAL documents: Penmanship = handwriting. Chairman = chairperson.

You know - for the sensitive feminists (rolls eyes)

I don't think that there's anything wrong with getting rid of gender bias in language. It seems like a very reasonable suggestion to me.

 

[Summerwind]

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.

When you and your ilk are decrying this as well, you might have some credibility in complaining about colleges et al...
In the name of emotional well-being, county clerks and magistrates are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for the nation....

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Rather than encourage debate and confrontation with legitimate grievances, it reinforces segregation. People stay in their bubbles, because being comforted rarely means growing and increasing social justice.

I agree that this would be bad. However, I haven't seen this actually happen. "Safe spaces" are places where people who are frequently confronted with bigotry can go to be temporarily free from it. They are places privileged people go to avoid being confronted with difficult issues. In fact, from what I've seen, most of the people in dire need of growth tend to be the more fervent opponents of safe spaces. If you have an example of safe spaces gone wrong, I'd be interested to see it though. It's entirely possible that I've just missed it.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

What we should do is not ever warn students that there may be graphic descriptions or depictions of rape in their class material. Who cares if they're victims of sexual assault. Flooding is an approved psychological technique right

:lol:

 

[Fiddytree]

I agree that this would be bad. However, I haven't seen this actually happen. "Safe spaces" are places where people who are frequently confronted with bigotry can go to be temporarily free from it. They are places privileged people go to avoid being confronted with difficult issues. In fact, from what I've seen, most of the people in dire need of growth tend to be the more fervent opponents of safe spaces. If you have an example of safe spaces gone wrong, I'd be interested to see it though. It's entirely possible that I've just missed it.

Well, there have been a number of instances whereby pro-choice activists and disability groups do not get along well (or also women of color and pro-choice activists). The reason being two very different historical experiences. When the two clash, it has been noted that at these conferences there is plenty of talk about not wanting the intersectional group to be invited or granted the ability to present, because "they make us feel guilty."

What safe spaces tend to do in higher education is being used as a tool in the culture war. Someone with a controversial viewpoint coming in to speak is greeted with an assortment of social structures which are there to defend against their very presence. This is more akin to defending from invasion rather than seeing it as an opportunity to hear the other party and engage with them constructively.

This is a slight stretch here, but I can imagine how this could potentially develop over time. When I, a person with a disability, speak to professionals and critique their view of their jobs and their clients, it's plenty contentious already. We've encountered some incredibly defensive stuff when having the audacity to speak in front of their body once (it's not like I would be a regular presence with each group assembled). Out of nowhere you can get a teacher crying foul ("you're attacking teachers!") whether at the appropriate time or not. It's equally sensitive inside these Departments of Education at universities. I had to walk on egg shells my entire time there, and I've made the mistake of giving my tactfully stated opinion in any form (written or in class).

These teachers are ripe for such social conventions. I can easily imagine giving a talk about my research or life experience. Inside there could be some safe space to comfort these morally certain, professionally sensitive teachers in training, just in case I hurt their rather fragile egos.

Now, I spent a great deal of time learning their craft, learning their jobs, and finding means to improve situations they themselves deal with, but my God they reject anything in kind. Give them the comfort of a safe space, and I'm sure we just reinforce their intransigence to improve the lives of the people I represent.

 

[Fiddytree]

I agree that this would be bad. However, I haven't seen this actually happen. "Safe spaces" are places where people who are frequently confronted with bigotry can go to be temporarily free from it. They are places privileged people go to avoid being confronted with difficult issues. In fact, from what I've seen, most of the people in dire need of growth tend to be the more fervent opponents of safe spaces. If you have an example of safe spaces gone wrong, I'd be interested to see it though. It's entirely possible that I've just missed it.

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.

 

[nota bene]

explain how

Why don't you read the article I linked in the OP? It explains how. :roll:

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

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.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Well, there have been a number of instances whereby pro-choice activists and disability groups do not get along well (or also women of color and pro-choice activists). The reason being two very different historical experiences. When the two clash, it has been noted that at these conferences there is plenty of talk about not wanting the intersectional group to be invited or granted the ability to present, because "they make us feel guilty."

What safe spaces tend to do in higher education is being used as a tool in the culture war. Someone with a controversial viewpoint coming in to speak is greeted with an assortment of social structures which are there to defend against their very presence. This is more akin to defending from invasion rather than seeing it as an opportunity to hear the other party and engage with them constructively.

This is a slight stretch here, but I can imagine how this could potentially develop over time. When I, a person with a disability, speak to professionals and critique their view of their jobs and their clients, it's plenty contentious already. We've encountered some incredibly defensive stuff when having the audacity to speak in front of their body once (it's not like I would be a regular presence with each group assembled). Out of nowhere you can get a teacher crying foul ("you're attacking teachers!") whether at the appropriate time or not. It's equally sensitive inside these Departments of Education at universities. I had to walk on egg shells my entire time there, and I've made the mistake of giving my tactfully stated opinion in any form (written or in class).

These teachers are ripe for such social conventions. I can easily imagine giving a talk about my research or life experience. Inside there could be some safe space to comfort these morally certain, professionally sensitive teachers in training, just in case I hurt their rather fragile egos.

Now, I spent a great deal of time learning their craft, learning their jobs, and finding means to improve situations they themselves deal with, but my God they reject anything in kind. Give them the comfort of a safe space, and I'm sure we just reinforce their intransigence to improve the lives of the people I represent.

I suspect that we differ in the definition of a safe space that has gone too far. For instance, you talk about how the exclusion of certain viewpoints from college campuses leads to the loss of constructive engagement. However, in many instances, I would see such exclusion as commendable dedication to a moral standard. In fact, I think that a lot of prejudice is allowed to be perpetuated under the name of "hearing people out". There are, of course, instances where I think it might go too far, but for the most part, I support the exclusion of certain viewpoints from college campuses, particularly if they perpetuate bigotry.

That said, reading your post, I remembered that I have witnessed "safe spaces gone wrong" in the past. One example is a seemingly perpetual conflict between white feminists and women of color. Some white feminists argue that women of color should not bring up racism perpetuated by white feminists because women are supposed to "stick together". This is a version of the safe space argument - that women, because they share a type of oppression, should not acknowledge the ways in which they harm each other because it creates tension. In this sense, the "safe space" is used to perpetuate prejudice by stopping people from acknowledging it. This is similar to what you were saying about certain groups wanting to exclude others at the conferences "because 'they make us feel guilty'".

I get what you're saying. We still aren't in 100% agreement, which is fine, but I get your point about how they can be misused.