The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
I thought this was a good article about what seems to be a rising trend on US campuses.
Student activists are increasingly demanding that they be protected from, or at least warned about, any words that might emotionally harm them, such as "violate". Similarly works of literature may have themes that emotionally harm them, and they should be warned of these so that they can avoid them and maintain their "safe space".
The authors question whether this approach is really beneficial to the students themselves. They see it as reinforcing and rewarding "emotional thinking" by students, rather than, what might be more beneficial, teaching students instead to question their "emotional thinking".
The authors suggest that teaching students some psychology (e.g. some techniques of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and the nature of some common cognitive distortions), would be of more benefit to them than an escalating emphasis on the "right to not be offended".
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
In June, a professor protecting himself with a pseudonym wrote an essay for Vox describing how gingerly he now has to teach. “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” the headline said.
I thought this was a good article about what seems to be a rising trend on US campuses.
Student activists are increasingly demanding that they be protected from, or at least warned about, any words that might emotionally harm them, such as "violate". Similarly works of literature may have themes that emotionally harm them, and they should be warned of these so that they can avoid them and maintain their "safe space".
The authors question whether this approach is really beneficial to the students themselves. They see it as reinforcing and rewarding "emotional thinking" by students, rather than, what might be more beneficial, teaching students instead to question their "emotional thinking".
The authors suggest that teaching students some psychology (e.g. some techniques of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and the nature of some common cognitive distortions), would be of more benefit to them than an escalating emphasis on the "right to not be offended".
If our universities are teaching students that their emotions can be used effectively as weapons—or at least as evidence in administrative proceedings—then they are teaching students to nurture a kind of hypersensitivity that will lead them into countless drawn-out conflicts in college and beyond. Schools may be training students in thinking styles that will damage their careers and friendships, along with their mental health.
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.
But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.