“The Coddling of the American Mind”, was quite an interesting article to read. Many thoughts were forming in my head after every sentence or paragraph in which I’ve read. In the article Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explained an issue that many college students are becoming overly sensitive about many discomforting topics and why it is causing a great damage to protect words that are being used that may cause microaggressions amongst college students. With generations changing and with new ideas forming, many are being cautious within their act. Throughout the article, both authors shared behaviors that were observed on college campuses. Voicing your opinion is a crime during these days of age. Do we really practice freedom of speech or do we abuse the concept of freedom of speech? Students are trying to eliminate subjects, words, or ideas that are being used or taught within the college campuses that make them feel uncomfortable or offended. Based on the article, trigger warnings occur when students are not prepared to hear certain thoughts or words in which upsets them or make them uncomfortable, in other words, trigger their emotions. Lukianoff and Haidt use many examples and resources to explain why eliminating or censoring such words is an issue for mental health.
Joseph 2
“In 1993, the university charged an Israeli-born
…show more content…
Due to many past issues that occurred over the years, I believe many became sensitive gradually overtime. “After the 1999 Columbine massacre in Colorado, many schools cracked down on bullying, implementing “zero tolerance” policies” (Lukianoff and Haidt p.6). Issues such as the 1999 Columbine massacre, enforced many to second think what they say before saying what they believe. In my opinion, professors should be careful in what they say due to many issues such as slavery where many were stripped into their own dignity. Our own president for instance, says many ignorant comments
Downes recommends the “University of Chicago’s Dean Ellison’s letter”. Downes argument is for people to understand what are trigger warnings and safe spaces. How they help people come out of their shell. The purpose is for people to know that we need trigger warnings and safe spaces. Downes claims that trigger warnings and safe spaces actually encourage free speech and enhances support and community.
" Common speech forms are changing, and school authorities are often a generation or two behind these changes. The speech was not offensive to the great majority of students, nor would it turn anyone's head if heard in a public forum. Writing for the
Text 1, written by Greg Lukianoff is an article titled ‘The Coddling of the American Mind’ taken from a website called www.theatlantic.com in the form of written text. Published in September 2015, it is intended with the purpose to inform and expose the truth about trigger warnings. The writer’s intended audience may be students who witnessed the occurrence trigger warnings within their campus and working adults in colleges and universities. The context of Text 1 is the writer presenting his personal opinion on trigger warnings based on his experiences. Text 2, on the other hand, is an article titled ‘An Optimist’s Guide to Political Correctness’ by Megan Garber.
In his article “Lost in America,” Douglas McGray highlights the isolationism of the American educational system Through his article, McGray expresses his concerns about the lack of focus of the American education system on the learning of foreign culture. The article was issued by Foreign Policy magazine in 2006. McGray’s target audiences are the ones that can make changes in the educational curriculum, which signifies that his intended audience includes American legislators involved in American curriculum policies. McGray, who is co-creator and editor-in-chief of Pop-Up Magazine claims that the American education has an isolationist curriculum.
Conservative students may decide to go to a liberal school. One student that has been in that environment and now is an English college professor named Aaron Hanlon at Colby College writes “Advice for My Conservative Students” published on February 16th 2017 in the New York Times and he claims that conservative students should understand what freedom of speech is and should not mistake disagreement with oppression. Hanlon starts off by stating personal experiences that relates him to conservative students that feel oppressed, giving conservative students relatable emotional appeals, and various sources and statistics for the reader to indulge in. He starts off by putting himself out there and saying that he has been a conservative student who
Today’s college students are becoming more sensitized to the harshness of the outside world. Instead of learning to be resilient to others’ comments, they are being taught to take offense to any little word that could in some way be connected with a bad experience they might have had, and college administrators and professors are aiding this childish behavior. They are backing this movement to make adults into children. With this new movement to rid college campuses of any speech that may make anyone feel uncomfortable, students are being treated less like adults, and more like elementary children.
Should Shakespeare Come with a Warning Label? In his article “Should Shakespeare Come with a Warning Label?”, author David M Perry, an associate professor of history at Dominican University in Illinois, points out “trigger warnings” among students taking courses in higher education classes with vile content within the class’ assignments. He acknowledges that both sides of the argument have a valid point, but favors the critics of trigger warnings because he claims if students want to excel, they must face situations that make them uncomfortable. In addition, Perry suggests a plan to possibly help student: teachers advice students in advance about graphic content, and students should use the disability resources offered at school.
Though there are some exceptions, the young generation at large today has been brainwashed by politically correct culture. That culture shuns complex thought, and makes any dissent from the PC mainstream punishable by shunning, yelling, and attempts to silence. It runs rampant on college campuses, and Hofstra is no exception. Trigger warnings are unfortunately a major aspect of this culture, and there is little remedy other than to save the minds of those we can still sway. As best summarized by the American Association of University Professors, “The presumption that students need to be protected rather than challenged in a classroom is at once infantilizing and anti-intellectual”
They argue that speech that is considered to be offensive can be harmful to certain groups of students who are marginalized or underrepresented. Liberal students contend that speech codes are extremely necessary to ensure that all students feel valued and respected on campus. Some liberal students also argue that speech codes do not threaten freedom of speech at all. They can point out that the First Amendment protects free speech but does not protect speech that is considered to be hateful. Many of these students believe that these codes are simply a way to enforce existing laws and do not restrict legitimate forms of expression or debate.
The Internet offers a wide range of content compared to the available classroom literature. A trigger warning could be beneficial when used as a compromise. If we were to apply trigger warnings to content that contained graphic scenes, we could still include the beneficial information while avoiding the exemption of the material. Even adding trigger warnings when it is necessary shuts down areas of discussion. Students should freely defend their own ideas and explore the opinions of others (Filipovic).
In the essay, University is Right to Crack Down on Speech and Behavior by Eric Posner argues that students today are more like children than adults and need protection. Posner would always refer back to the college student and how they are still kids not age wise but as their maturity. “The problem is that universities have been treating children like adults.” (Posner 185). The context of his argument is involved with the speed codes.
If someone is going to have a conversation with another person, than their freedom of speech should be protected, however; if someone had the sole intentions of causing harm or discomfort to the person that they were speaking with or at, then their freedom of speech may not be so protected. This should be of no concern to any persons on a college campus who are worrying about their right to freedom of speech or expression being neglected, considering that speech codes only work to prevent harm inflicted by hate speech to all students. I agree with Lawrence in that if we are going to end racism, we, as a society, have to take small steps in protecting minority
In Derek Bok’s, Protecting Freedom of Expression On The Campus, he brings light to the issue of censorship in universities. He states that students at Harvard University got offended after a few students displayed the confederate flag. There have been many cases in which people have tried to censor offensive material however; the Supreme Court preferred to conserve the freedom of expression. He believes that if censorship starts to take place, it will be difficult to know when to cross the line. In addition, it will not fix the initial problem since the offenders will continue to abuse others using different means.
Free speech and hate speech can be classified as different topics and when arguing for one, we can also criticize the other. Free expression and free speech on campuses are crucial for sparking important conversations about equality and social justice, and the suspension of free speech and expression may have dire consequences on college campuses. First, freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views, while also allowing students with common beliefs to align. Free speech and the call for free speech allows those who have been historically systematically oppressed to use their voice.
We can’t misuse the freedom of speech, saying words that can cause serious harm (bullying). This form of speech will cause depression, suicide, and stunted social development. When freedom of speech hurts others, then it is not just an opinion anymore; it is a form of hate