This was a a fascinating read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

I happen to agree with a LOT of the sentiment in that article. True education is about considering things that could not and would not have occurred to you in a vacuum. Gotta say that often, those opportunities are initially a bit unpleasant or jarring by definition.

DD has noted a bit of this. Some professors are wary-- and others are downright DEFIANT over it. The latter tend to be those with tenure, by the way... and I'll also add, here, that this is precisely the sort of situation that tenure was intended to combat.

You know what I think of as I read this? Not the whole "free range" vs. Helicopter" (which annoys me to no end, btw) or any of that. I just strikes me as something very simple... The WASP tendency to be indirect about EVERYTHING and never really say anything too strong. I am from inner-city working-class (which I in no way idealize, mind you, and looking back I'd choose to be raised in the upper-middle class WASP culture I am about to criticize somewhat anyday!) and I now live in WASP world - where I have found it very striking that my in-laws and my neighbors never say anything directly... everything is passive-aggressive. Example - book club with my neighbors, one other woman there is also from inner-city, working-poor background, the rest all upper-middle class WASPS. Fellow inner-city woman announces that she "hated the book we read that month" about which we had gathered to discuss. This did not concern me at all. It is after all a book club. The others talked about this for weeks, maybe months after... they were absolutely shocked and appalled that 'she would say such strong direct words with no regard for the others in the club who liked it or the person who chose it!' They found it very offensive and there was much discussion for how she could have phrased her opinion in a more palatable manner. I was quite perplexed. This is one example of several such experiences I have encountered in the socioeconomic class not of my origin. And that particular woman? Not much liked at all for her directness... She is constantly misinterpreted and gossiped about routinely due to her direct nature.

I think it is just this type of culture taking over.

On the other hand, in my college days it was a horrible comedian was all over with these awful misogynistic jokes (I forget his name ... it will come to me) and two live crew, and other such things I had to deal with on a daily basis so I am not sure a more PC culture is bad...

And I wonder if people are not conflating the two unnecessarily? Be PC and respectful but also be able to discuss unpleasant things and express opinions strongly and directly.. must the two be mutually-exclusive? I don't think so. I feel like I am able to do both relatively well ... most of the time (with the exception of here just now where I in a very un-pc manner called people WASPs and then stereotyped them!)

Ugh and WHY are people/children with life threatening allergies always targeted in these things??? Does it really all start when "peanut butter was banned from student lunches" to permit children with peanut allergies to go to school without fearing on a daily basis for their lives? ... And, of course, if only we allowed children to be bullied!!! So annoying... My son has a peanut allergy and has definitely benefited for the schools quick reaction nipping bullying in the bud but he and I also have many interesting and animated discussions about all sorts of unpleasant topics such as racism, war, genocide, class, poverty, etc., etc.

LOL-- I wondered who else would pick up on that. It smacks of a writer that doesn't understand that such a thing really can be like a loaded firearm on a table in a preschool or primary setting-- something that MOST rational people would consider, er-- ill-advised. To say the least. I notice that there isn't any mention of "stranger danger" training, which I find pretty ridiculous myself.


My own DD is a pretty clear example of this-- we've sheltered her from NOTHING in terms of ideas and language or discourse. It feels like-- well, censorship of the worst kind. She isn't fragile, and the opinions of others don't really bother her all that much.

A food allergen in class, on the other hand... makes her very anxious, particularly if she is trying to focus on an assessment at the time. (Gee, who would have thought that being worried for your physical safety might impact learning or working memory, eh? )

I guess she has figured out that one of them is a real DANGER to her, and the other not-so-much. I'd say that is rather rational, all in all.

Yes, obviously someone without a clear, factual understanding of the life-threatening nature of some allergies...

But on the core thoughts, I did find myself nodding at many of the main points, both from my parenting perspective and my professional mental health perspective. One sentence in particular:


And its converse: even those whom we respect greatly for some particular trait, ideal, skill, thought, etc., are simultaneously deeply flawed humans. Neither should we reject their goodness because of their imperfections, nor should we emulate their flaws for the sake of their virtues.

Different than the article's discussion of
- Trigger Warnings required on some campuses prior to delving into curriculum,
- and the concern for micro-aggressions,
your friend's use of the word "hate", which you see as:
- refreshing "directness" VS passive-aggressive
may be seen by some as one or more of the following:
- emotional reaction against an entire work VS taking the time to compose a well-articulated intellectual response,
- thinking out loud VS having a filter, and boundaries,
- shooting from the hip VS caring enough to think and process beforehand,
- rigid thinking VS flexible thinking,
- close-mindedness VS open-mindedness,
- gravitating toward the negative VS being able to find the good,
- attacking VS being vulnerable in discussing perspectives,
- out-of-control rant VS normal give-and-take of asking questions & listening to others,
- lack of skill to deconstruct and analyze VS having acquired and practiced the skill of deconstructing and analyzing,
- not interested in finding commonality and areas of agreement VS genuinely liking the other book club members,
- lack of social skill and theory of mind VS demonstrating equal interest in what others think and why,
- a conversation ender VS a conversation opener.

This does not necessarily follow along the lines of SES or ethnicity, as you alluded.

It is possible that your friend may have grown accustomed to making brief replies, if earlier in life she has not had much opportunity to engage in lengthy back-and-forth conversation with audiences such as book club members who are interested in the variety of things which she may have to say... conversations where no particular view is "right" or "wrong", but the focus is on self-discovery.

She may find that she very much enjoys the luxury of asking questions of others about what they liked, challenging herself to deconstruct a work, and finding the good.

Possibly best done by exploring ones' thoughts internally, then using a filter and boundaries to express one's thoughts intellectually rather than at a visceral emotional level. This ties back to the theme of the article. The article discusses the benefits of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and lists some Common Cognitive Distortions.

Agreed.

Indigo, the other women were concerned that her honest criticisms, unfavorable feelings about the book and her strong dislike would offend people... They thought she should have been more PC because she may offend the people who liked the book or person who choose the book. She also got into hot water and called out publicly for sending the group an email that there was a community Easter egg hunt. She was literally scolded because not everyone is christian and such info was offensive. I notice it in school too. My son has been discouraged more than once from critiquing a book or a movie (even a food) because it may offend others who like whatever he is critiquing. And I do thonk the article is referring to such situations in college. Instead of a discussion and exploration of the different viewpoints and feelings ensuing , people become very uncomfortable and discourage honest critical discussion or discussion of unpleasant/uncomfortable so as not to offend or make those who feel differently uncomfortable. And that's what I notice about this upper middle class WASP culture. "We are not unpleasant here... We do not discuss any thing that will make anyone uncomfortable... We make everything smooth and nice." My point is that it is not because we protect our children ... It during even have much to do with that... My point is it is a prevailing attitude/culture of "we do not angry, we do not have strong feelings or have unpleasant discussions - we are NICE ." To me it's a culture.

People can disagree without being disagreeable.

The article warns against labeling, discounting positives, focusing on the negatives, overgeneralizing, all-or-nothing thinking, blaming, and other behaviors which may not serve a person well.

LOL, indigo... I don't know but this sounds a lot like what the author is railing against in the article and in the interview I saw with the author of another article in the same vein and quoted in this one - Caitlyn Flanagan!

Can you clarify? What points, specifically, do you see a connection between?

Is your friend from the book club similar to a student who wants a trigger warning before reading an assigned book in the curriculum? Does she lack skill in perspective taking, possibly valuing only her viewpoint? Does she attempt to silence other's expression of their ideas, thereby remaining in a bubble?

Conversations may benefit if participants believe there are healthy emotions, and healthy ways to express emotions (even negative emotions). If we apply some general principles of good emotional hygiene, we can gain more accuracy in identifying and expressing our emotions.

I had the same thought, reading this, Irena.

I can't imagine being offended by someone "hating" a book, or expressing themselves via emotional language about a book, or even wanting to be in a book group where one had to "filter" to avoid being blackballed or bullied via social disapproval.

I do agree the skills Indigo references are useful in life, generally, though. This is especially true in professional life and/or discussions with acquaintances.

I also agree that there is a cultural tint to this. I prefer my friends with a little edge to them, seems more honest. I wouldn't want to be in a club like that. "With friends like that, who needs enemies" and also "too much time on their hands" come to mind.

Can you clarify? What points, specifically, do you see a connection between?

Is it possible that some may see the strong and emotional language as the bullying, and what you term "social disapproval" as attempts at discussing the group "norms" and providing coaching as to those expectations? Is it possible that children who do not "get" this may have social difficulty and that parents who do not "get" this may have difficulty acknowledging their children's difficulty and helping their children learn social norms?

It may be risky to reach out to people who do not "get" this and try to raise awareness, as people unaware of social norms may tend to engage in ad hominem attacks rather than remain focused on discussing the concepts and ideas. Every group has social norms, even the forums have guidelines for interaction.

This is different than the article which discussed recent changes in post-secondary social norms, and debated whether these specific changes may be encouraging being thin-skinned and raising "taking offense" to an art form. Trigger-warnings and micro-aggressions were mentioned.

Yes. When you mention the context of certain relationships (professional life, acquaintances) this hints at different boundaries with different groups of people. These skills may also be useful in the classroom, at camp and extracurricular activities, etc. Some people pick up on social clues by casual observation, some by direct teaching. There are books and websites geared to teaching the basics to children and also as professional development for adults.

Which cultures do you see as using these skills, and which do you see as not?

Some may say that an edge which challenges one's thinking with new ideas is different than making strong emotional negative/derogatory statements without articulating challenging new ideas.

In what way(s) is having a social or cultural norm of politeness indicative of too much time on one's hands? By contrast, some may say that using precise language saves time as it is more likely to be understood, therefore less need for clarification to avoid misunderstanding.

This is absolutely true. My husband teaches neuroscience and recently had an experience with a student that was offended and distraught by a discussion about a hallucinogenic plant that is theorized to have played a role in religous life of a cult identified as a pre-cursor to christianity. His response and inability to accept the possibility because it was a potential threat to his belief system disrupted the coversation and side-tracked the class. And this was at the graduate-level.

Yes, it is possible that using the word "hate" could be perceived as bullying by some (although I think that is a bit overwrought)--but my sense of Irena's story was more that the group was taken aback by what they perceived as "insensitivity/social inappropriateness," not outright aggression.

I can't be sure if you are directing the part about parents/children my way, specifically, but since the shoe fits: yes, I do think it's difficult for parents who have social communication issues to help their children learn social norms. The same might be said for different SES groups (think Ruby Payne). It is hard to understand nuances of middle-class social behavior and communication styles if that's not one's native tongue.

Now I'm confused. Are you suggesting Irena point her friend to social skills training?

I can't be sure, but I think Irena's observation was that there is a similar dynamic to that discussed in the article ("don't offend anyone") in mainstream middle-class-suburban(?)culture. It seemed to me she was just noticing a general trend, which I have also noticed.

Sure, but "I hate this book" could also be a conversation starter. There are myriad reasons a person could hate a book, and many of them are in no way derogatory in terms of the book's value. I "hated" Of Mice and Men because Lenny's death was so upsetting that I lost it in class and cried my eyes out...when I was a girl. As a parent or teacher, if a child said "I hate this book," I'd want to know more. It just doesn't offend me, and I'm trying to imagine why it would offend anyone. I would suggest that if the person in the book club personalized that statement to the point of discussing it weeks and months later, perhaps THAT is a distortion, and CBT might help.

Again, I don't perceive "I hate the book" as impolite. The "too much time" bit is in reference to this being gossip fodder weeks later. To me, a sound byte like that would not be powerful enough to elicit such: emotional reaction(s), rigid thinking, close-mindedness, gravitating toward the negative, attacking, out-of-control ranting, lack of skill to deconstruct and analyze, etc., in terms of the friend who made a social error.

Even "antisocial" social groups have norms. That doesn't mean we have to universally embrace social norms as being a moral or ethical obligation, in my opinion.

People do have varying degrees of sensitivity and tolerance, and I agree that it is nice to be nice. But it is also a skill to learn not to be hypersensitive or too quick to judge others, or to recognize their background, experience, and perspective might be different from one's own. I'm not suggesting people ought to go around offending/hurting each other and not giving a flip, but perhaps somewhere in the middle should be the goal.

Interesting discussion, thank you for your thoughts.

If Two Live Crew was contemporary with the comedian, I'll bet a dollar Andrew Dice Clay is the misogynist comedian you are blanking on.

--S.F.

Well said. I believe this is the point of the article: a combination of "Where to draw the line?" and "Realize that people (as individuals and as groups) may draw the line in different places."

ETA: The article may also have an element cautioning against having the tail wag the dog.

This seems like the type of statement which would make good click-bait online, and an interesting tidbit for a professor to toss out to see who might inquire about the source(s) of that theory, the credibility of the sources, the other works of the sources, the impact if the theory was true, any ongoing anthropological/archeological research being done on the subject, and whether such a theory might ever be proved/disproved... or might remain forever a theory, shrouded in mystery.

It seems this type of open-minded discussion would be encouraged by the author of the article.

It seems that placing the lesson and discussion on a list of trigger-warnings or micro-aggressions (essentially censorship) would be questioned by the author of the article.

I love discussing this stuff. it is fascinating to me. And yes to all of Eco's points above!

Incidentally, "hate" is a very taboo word in these parts among the (white? not sure how much differences happen along race, ethnicity, etc. lines) upper middle class. When my DH and I were dating, we were in the grocery store and I was going through my cards trying to find this particular's store discount card and I said grumpily and exasperatedly "I hate that I need a card for every store I shop at - it's ridiculous..." and my husband was very taken aback... At first, I wasn't sure why and then he told me "hate" is an offensive word and certainly shouldn't be used near small children! Uh, really? In this context? Just odd to me. Then I noticed in our area once I had children... most children are not permitted to say "hate" I heard many reprimands - Example: child says, "I hate green beans!" Parent replies, "Child!!! we do NOT use that word!" Me "What word?" Parent, wispering" the "H" word - hate." DH's family is also very uncomfortable with any kind of negative emotion. There is a huge emphasis on saying things with a smile and nicely. This also cuts the other way because my sister-in-law will brutally cut a person down or insult him/her but as long as she does it with a smile and "nicely" - it is okay and watch out if you directly call her out on her unkindness. I find it all of it rather difficult to navigate. And fascinating! I suspect not only because of my background but because I practice law and we are pretty strong in our words and direct. In-laws are big proponents of the sandwich approach and always tip-toe around coming out and saying they are unhappy with anyone or anything. I have to admit, it can get a little exhausting. On the other hand, I'll take it any day over the harshness and negativity of my family of origin... Ugh... I have gotten more used to the "niceness" and avoiding unpleasantness... and yeah it can be very pleasant

The woman at book club wasn't bullying ... we were all getting settled and she said something like "ugh I hated this book ... what did everyone else think?" And yeah she could have said it "nicer" that seems to be the "in-thing" around here... But I know where this woman is from ... It's just not her style... It's not a social skills thing as much as you may think it is... It's a cultural thing. When you come from where this woman comes from, negativity and hardship and unpleasant are very much a fact of life. Not kidding. "Hating a book" not gonna give pause to anyone on any day where she comes from. They have real problems . On the other hand, did she really hate it? No, she just didn't like it... Where she comes from it's the opposite extreme - people are very negative, more comfortable with unpleasantness, a bit skeptical and untrusting of niceness, always skeptical, etc...

And I have to chuckle at the suggestion of social skills training for my book club 'friend'... Yeah, only in upper middle class suburban American would it be suggested that someone needs social skills training because they said they "hated a book." This is totally something our elementary school would suggest if a kid said the same thing! But the inner city school? I think people there would just be thrilled that the person actually read the book and was up for discussing it even with his/her lack of "nicer" synonyms for "hate" at his/her disposal. And THAT is something I thin the article is definitely driving. It is becoming socially unacceptable to be negative or unpleasant at all tot he point that if some is at all - it needs to be "trained" right out of them.

That is what I pointed out when I joined in the gossip/discussion of the "incident" ... I said "well, c'mon it is not as if [person who choose book selection and others who did like it, me included] wrote the book! I don't think there is a reason to take what she said as so offensive or so personal." My contribution was politely ignored LOL.

LOL, Irena-- I think that your anecdote really nailed this one. Treating an opinion as though it were hate-speech or a racial epithet of some kind is just bizarre.


It's subjective. Ergo, it's free speech, and it's not "violence" of some sort to express a subjective opinion, though it may be the minority one.


The more concerning thing to me is the anecdote re: the classroom experience that another poster mentions. THAT kind of passive-aggressive controlling of an open intellectual environment is very much "aggression" in my book. I'm sure that the student in question didn't see it that way. S/He was probably thinking only of him/herself-- which is sort of the point that the article is making, when you get right down to it.

It may be pursued in a way that indicates that the person conducting themselves that way is feeling persecuted or "revictimized," but make no mistake, they were simultaneously controlling the rights to free speech and freedom of thought, for that matter within that classroom.

That's bad, bad news in a lot of ways. It goes beyond the scope of the article's rather astute observations, in fact, into a dulling of what the term "education" even means.

If open and frank-- maybe even "heated" discussion isn't welcome, then only ONE communication style is "acceptable" and only dogma is permissible... but that isn't critical discourse or learning. Not by a long shot.


Now I'm wondering if it's even okay if say that I "hate" Hitler. Maybe I'm not allowed to mention Hitler at all, given what an unpleasant sort of guy he turned out to be. The thing is, if we don't examine unpleasant history, aren't we neglecting to learn from it??

The other thing that I wonder is if, in the push for "acceptable" which seems to be an ever-narrowing sort of window, frankly, with pathologizing on either side of it (perhaps Irena's book club friend might have-- GASP-- a conduct disorder... )--

we're making it (as a society, I mean) harder and harder to live on the edges of the distribution.

It's possible that this phenomenon is driving intolerance for gifted persons, as well. We make people... what is the word? Oh yes--

uncomfortable-- with our intensity, drives, divergent thinking, observations, quickness, etc.


I have to wonder if people have less tolerance for things that make them personally uncomfortable, and feel far more empowered to COMPLAIN and "make it right" for themselves at every turn, leading to a sort of vanilla kind of world, where the only complaining which is permitted is; "you're offending me with your differences (of opinion, speech, thought)-- stop that!"

Fabulous insight, thanks for sharing. As a parent you now have control over the choice in norms which you set for your son, including alerting him to when different modes of communication and word choice may tend to be most effective.

Eco mentioned Ruby Payne, are you familiar with her work? It may be of interest to you.

Might children benefit from learning more precise words for various degrees of dislike and disappointment? For example, in this case the card may have been "inconvenient", or clutter, or more work than it was worth.

Many people try to find the balance, acknowledging both the good and the bad. As new facts and information are gathered, a person's vantage point may change. Focusing on facts and information may provide the freedom to change one's view easily, and not feel locked in or in defense of an idea which may no longer be relevant or true.

This may be "relational aggression", a form of bullying often described as occurring among girls. Many people find the books by Rosalind Wiseman insightful: the best known may be Queen Bees and Wannabees, and Queen Bee Moms & Kingpin Dads.

If you avoid the "common cognitive errors" listed in the article in formulating your response, you should be fine.

Very true but it has even happened here to on this forum, people have played the 'I'm so offended and everyone else has to abide by my borderline neurotic sensibilities' card to shut down intelligent dialogue and even get someone (22b) banned even.

I don't know the context of the discussion, it was likely just part of a larger talk about psychopharmacology and history of drug use, etc... Whether the type of follow up discussion about the source, research, etc.. was part of it, likely not. Althrough it probably could have been to allieviate his stress a bit.

I was coming to peruse for some information for my daughter...we have ongoing schooling fun with her, and 2E issues, have had some insight recently and thought maybe I'd come here and see what was new. Then I saw this thread. It's an interesting article - the state of higher education concerns me since I get to see the results of all kinds of education through the students at various college. Not posted as "bait," just an example of a situation per the article.

If a person desires to not be perplexed by social norms, and desires to not find social situations difficult to navigate, there are resources and information available.

Another poster likened learning different social norms to a language, in a post here. It is up to the individual to decide if they would benefit from learning the language of a group they may wish to belong to.

This may be different than the changing post-secondary norms discussed in the article, which specifically mentioned trigger-warnings and micro-aggressions.

LOL indeed.

To clarify -
Not "bait", as in an allegedly inappropriate post on a forum...
"click-bait", as in a high-interest story found online, often posted by news agencies with a high number of ads per page.

The lesson you mentioned would be interesting as click-bait.

Is it possible that posters may get themselves banned by not abiding by the board rules? Unless, of course, there are rules made up on-the-fly and/or selective enforcement of the documented rules and policies. Some may say that would be poor role-modeling on the part of a gifted support organization, as gifted advocacy is largely based upon holding schools and other institutions accountable to abiding by their documented rules and policies.

One of the "common cognitive errors" described in the article was blaming others. This is different than expecting an organization to follow its documented policies.

Cool beans. Learn something new everyday.

Yes, that's him!

I'm not sure that it is-- at least not exclusively so. I think it's a local and cultural one. Because I definitely live in a different culture than I grew up in, and yet the communication styles that I'm surrounded by are largely similar (and fairly broad in terms of individual norms/styles).

The problem identified in the article, in fact, could equally be characterized as people who have been raised to be socially incompetent at communication styles outside of THEIR narrow range (which has never been stretched to be more inclusive, either).

College, however, is supposed to do that 'stretching' for a student whether they enjoy it or not. Think "Green Eggs and Ham." Students have always been empowered to treat it like a cultural buffet, or they can approach it like Goldilocks and staunchly refuse to participate in aspects that they are not comfortable with, or find strange. The article is pointing out that now, a fair number of Goldilocks-like students are complaining that there is sushi or other "weird" food there to be had-- that it bothers them. Personally, I think it's that they object to feeling MARGINALIZED by their extant worldview or cultural beliefs. They ALL want to be "normative." I think that a generation of children has grown to adulthood with the notion that any observation of a thought, practice, or belief being unshared by others constitutes BULLYING.

In response, all of our culture has gone kind of insane trying to PREDICT what Goldilocks wants and does NOT want. Our modern Goldilocks, in fact, would be suing the bear family for her pain and suffering given how awful her breaking and entering and the subsequent vandalism was for her. How DARE they keep all that stuff in their home, after all-- they should have anticipated that some people would be highly sensitive to food temperature, at least.



I also have to wonder at the class observation. It is possible that when you've never worried about your basic needs-- for safety, food, shelter, etc.-- that you wind up in a place where verbal interactions might loom larger in relative importance. I don't deny that for some individuals the word "hate" might well seem threatening but coming FROM a lot of people, it just isn't so, anymore than the term "fastidious" or "obsessive" is exactly a menacing one. They are all just WORDS and IDEAS. One need only examine the use of verbiage and its relative variance in local dialect to see how attempting to categorize emotional value in language is a losing exercise-- there IS no agreement on the emotional value even of the term "cold" for example. To a resident of San Antonio or Delhi, this term doesn't mean the same thing as it does to someone who lives in Barrow or Edinburgh. Highly subjective.

That's just my suspicion. Obviously, suffering from PTSD is probably more common in the group that has come from lower SES, as such events are more commonplace there during one's childhood-- but it doesn't seem to translate into greater sensitivity/vulnerability in the context that the article is discussing. At least not in studies that I've seen on PTSD, it doesn't.

I also have to agree with the article's implication that trying to purge the world of PTSD triggers is a foolish and fruitless endeavor, given how the human brain retains and processes trauma. The sensory information that is most likely to trigger PTSD is often not speech in the first place. It's things like smells or environmental sounds/sights.
Of course, even if one COULD purge the world of, say-- the scent of lysol (just as one example)-- would it really be doing the PTSD-afflicted individual any favors long-term? Not really.

All very good points!

No, I am in the northeast! I lived in the south (Louisiana) for about three years, though, and noticed it was worse there definitely! I think I notice it so much because I really went from one extreme to the other and have to go back and forth between the two. When I bring my suburban mannerisms to my working poor family, they are very annoyed and distrustful of me and when I bring my working-poor catholic me to my WASP family (in-laws, for example) they are shocked/offended. I'll be the first to admit, I seem to have trouble being completely one with one group and the other way with the other group. Sometimes, I forget where I am LOL... I'm sure there are many other factors at play - sexism, mental health issues, etc . I am not sure it is something one would readily notice unless you really are traveling deeply between and communicating in both groups. I do like the WASP world better ... it is 'nice' albeit annoying, fake and stifling at times.... I love my inlaws as batty as they drive sometimes with all of their "niceness." But I am a bit of an outsider still with the women in my particular neighborhood and that's fine.

A few posts by others may indicate a similar theory. However, is it possible that the inverse may be true?

Might an emphasis on:
- developing vocabulary,
- understanding and being able to articulate varying degrees of concepts,
- using precise language,
- and having a personal word bank large enough to be able to rephrase as needed for clarity,
help bring about circumstances in which a person is better able to:
- maintain positive interpersonal relationships (including with those having a different background and knowledge base),
- negotiate and self-advocate,
- be welcomed in a variety of social circles,
- and influence the ability to position one's self on a positive path to attaining/maintaining safety, food, shelter, etc?
Decades of immigrants have taken this approach, highly valuing the myriad educational opportunities and the mixing/mingling of various regions, ethnicities, and SES which is commonplace in the USA. Enhancing one's ability to communicate may enhance one's environment. Expanding one's vocabulary may be a key component.

Getting beyond an initial internal emotional reaction to a stimulus and processing it intellectually before making a response may be made easier with practice - the types of practice which may come from exposure to a rich array of positive and negative experiences, both in-person and vicariously such as through reading books, conversing with others, etc. This may also include being exposed to a broad variety of concepts and ideas at the post-secondary level, as mentioned in the article: Without such exposure individuals may lose resilience.

The definition of hate, found online, includes: "Hatred (or hate) is a deep and emotional extreme dislike. It can be directed against individuals, groups, entities, objects, behaviors, or ideas. Hatred is often associated with feelings of anger, disgust and a disposition towards hostility."

Some may say that a widespread/commonplace use or over-reliance on words incorporating extreme emotions of anger/hostility may create a more angry, hostile environment.

This may be akin to "smacking the oobleck with a spoon and creating an unyielding solid," which works against one's self.

Either bullying or profound error.

And error has no rights.

Eloquent profundity.

Some might, alternatively, suggest that a habit of AVOIDING such terms, even when accurate, merely leads to a more passive-aggressive culture. This kind of thing then becomes a metaphorical game of "chicken" with emotional regulation and verbal acuity with euphemism governing the winners, because the underlying hostility is certainly not kept in check. It's my own hypothesis that such passive-aggressive games which tamp down negative feelings and leave them few/no outlets probably play some role in explosive acts of violence (such as school or workplace shootings).

Such cultural norms result in hidden and covert violence and barriers which then become more difficult to confront effectively-- they don't go away because of papering them with "nice." However, if one complains of being the victim of such antics, one is labeled as "difficult" or "antagonistic" or even "inappropriate."

It's just more dishonest. The best example of this is the patronizing elements of racist culture in the early 20th century "Jim Crow" laws-- separate wasn't equal, and everyone knew it, but saying so was "rude" or "offensive." Because apparently if one was African American, it was more "appropriate" to be pleased to have racially designated drinking fountains, schools, entrances, etc. Complaining was seen as "offensive." Offensive to those who maintained the status quo, to be sure.

It is also what lay under misogynistic cultural norms of "protecting" women from the harsher realities of life-- like literacy, current events, politics/governance, ownership of property, equal pay, workforce participation, engaging in male-dominated activities.... that kind of thing.

Human beings are not particularly "nice" as a general rule, and pretending that they are by papering over the less savory aspects of human history, thought, and lived experience merely gives the most predatory human beings more room in which to operate.

This is the problem with passive-aggression: there IS no way to "win" without sinking to that same level of dishonesty or appearing to be a horrible, aggressive (perhaps even "abusive") person. Anyone who was raised by such a parent knows that one all too well. Passive-aggression is, at its heart, about controlling and manipulating others using their finer instincts (compassion, conscience, etc) to work the magic of getting whatever you want from them and making THEM look bad if they don't comply.

Coming from lower SES means that one becomes socially and functionally less "literate" somehow as a direct result? I doubt this very much.

So the word "hate" is just-- because the individual lacks a better, nuanced, more erudite term? That seems fairly presumptuous without more information. What if she MEANT it? I've read books that I felt that way about. Perhaps this is instead a result of having a prevailing cultural perspective which devalues emotional intensity,, hmmm?


I do agree that at the other end of the SES, a rich array of experiences which include NEGATIVE experiences is probably a bit lacking during childhood, which is to say that some of those individuals lack emotional coping skills (and social ones, too, in my experience) for negative concepts, emotions, and social interactions. This seems to be what is being stated in the original article, in fact. That particular skill set is one that develops in those from poor childhood circumstances alongside resilience (which obviously is far from universal); some people develop poor or maladaptive coping, certainly-- and some do not.

I think that the corollary for those from privileged circumstances might be the development of empathy and unselfishness versus entitlement as a result of living with no unmet needs and few unmet wants. So sure-- some people from hostile beginnings fail to develop resilience or social literacy, but some of them develop such things quite well.



The verbiage generally isn't what people have a problem with in this sort of peer group censoriousness in action. What they really seem to be objecting to is the underlying sentiments being expressed. However, that is something that it is not appropriate for any human being to control in another. This is brainwashing, in fact; the control of what is acceptable to believe, think, or feel in another. If one prevents others from speaking their minds, alternatively, then all you have done is made a false world to exist within-- in ignorance of the reality around one. It's just got the veneer of gentility-- and make no mistake, ONLY the veneer of it. People are not different because of their choice of language or their manner of dress or customs, though many human beings would like to believe that they are. In fact, sociopaths make pretty clever use of this particular quirk of human nature.


In the case of the book club incident, I'd humbly submit that perhaps those who were deeply offended by the opinion of one member re: her personal feelings about the selection should consider a less internalized and personalized view of the world. Assuming that this was genuine in the first place, and not just a means of "othering" someone that the mean girls elected to oust for their differences-- and the extensive gossiping after the fact rather argues for that, IME.

You know, they could have considered it a way of expanding their own social literacy and thinking, which I'd have said was a pretty key reason to be attending a book club in the first place. Or, coming full circle, to attend COLLEGE for that matter.

In the two examples upthread, other words may have been more accurate than "hate"?

1. We later learned that a less emotionally extreme, angry, hostile response may have better expressed the sentiment; The woman disliked the book:
2.
Hopefully extreme emotions of anger and hostility are not cultured within a person for such everyday disappointments as grocery store check out lane inconvenience or side dish of vegetables, as alluded to in this post.



The article makes reference to "common cognitive errors" and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which may be useful for any individual to engage in meta-cognition or thinking about what one thinks, and why.



* The words "extreme emotion, anger, hostility" sourced from online definition of hate.

How very Orwellian

Next on the box "thought cops"

They wouldn't like me too much, considering every other thing that comes out of my mouth is either sarcastic or exaggerated (including this statement since it's not really every other thing). Really, the thought of having to censor every little thing that I say, or feel like I'm walking on eggshells all the time, would make me want to just stay at home. I wouldn't want to attend a book club unless I could make fun of the book if I feel like it! Of course, most people would gauge the reactions of others, for instance if everyone else loved the book, you wouldn't ramble on for 10 min. about how awful it was (unless someone asked), but it doesn't sound like that was the case with this woman. They sound like a bunch of Stepford wives. Or is that an Un-PC thing to say? Oops!

I would start my own book group. Only authentic people allowed.

The other word that I've seen young children are told is a bad word is "stupid". And while I agree that you shouldn't call anyone stupid, that is impolite, rude and unnecessary. Teaching children not to use it as a epithet is a good idea. But there are legitimate and non-offensive uses of the word. Nothing wrong with saying.. "That was a stupid thing I just did and now I have to spend hours fixing it".

I believe this is some adults/teachers not believing that young children can understand nuances. Preschool's are probably trying to keep children from throwing out "I hate you" and "You are stupid" comments by banning the use of the words.

She goofed. I think we should just cut people a break. The world is so intense right now. Everybody is so stressed. I feel terrible for the woman who said the word hate and is now a pariah. Women should be supportive and forgiving.

That statement itself is promoting an unhealthy stereotype - you should have put a 'trigger warning' at the top of your post. LOL

Agreed.

I wonder if this woman, upon reflection, and after receiving feedback, would agree?

Some may say that the issue of demanding broad social acceptance of frequent use of the emotionally extreme, angry, hostile word "hate" (when other words may be more accurate) may be different than the article's stance: that professors ought not face the choice of coddling college students by issuing trigger-warnings about words such as "violate" in curriculum... or risk suffering professional setbacks such as charges of micro-aggression by students.

SNORK

Good catch of a microaggression that might otherwise have gone unloved and unnoticed. Which would have been a terrible thing to waste, really.

This. Of course, one can go too far in the other direction, but I'd never consider "I hated this book" to be too far. "I hated this book and anyone who likes it is an idiot"--that is too far.

I'd be in a book club with this woman in a minute. She sounds interesting.

BTW, my husband and I both come from W.A.S.P. backgrounds but his family does the passive-aggressive stuff and mine is more the, uh, scream and yell variety. Again, scream and yell can go too far, but passive aggressive can make you feel literally insane, like gaslighting. Some may say you can see it in action here on these forums sometimes, too.

People like to think that they have good taste, and saying that a book stinks will be viewed by some people who like the book as a criticism of them, even if you do not directly call them idiots. OTOH, a expressing a negative opinion of a books could start a discussion where other people learn about its flaws or where the original critic comes to a new appreciation of the book. One needs to make one's point strongly enough that people actually get the message but not so strongly that they view it as a personal attack and immediately discount it.

Then they are oversensitive, IMO. Art is art. We all have personal tastes. When we dislike a piece of art, our dislike does not make any automatic statements about people who do like it.

I mean, I hate turnips. Am I therefore implicitly criticizing people who like them? Of course not.

BTW, I do think "This book stinks" is a different statement than "I hated this book."

Agree with everything here. "I hate this book" is a personal, emotional reaction and it's irrational to regard it as anything but, IMO.

Also: I would think it's acceptable to have an emotional reaction to art, in any circle. It's kind of...the whole point. Or at least a big part of the point. Literary analysis is interesting and a good intellectual exercise, but intellect isn't the entirety of human experience. If it were, there probably wouldn't be any literature to analyze.

Intolerant of Truth: Academic censo...rectness at the University of California
by HEATHER MAC DONALD
City Journal
September 21, 2015

I wonder how administrators would deal with UC Berkeley psychology professor and intelligence researcher Arthur Jensen if he were alive today.

All blind dogma rubs me the wrong way and this is just one more example of it.

I have to say that I stopped giving the UC system any credence when I heard that Shakespeare is no longer required to complete an undergraduate English degree...

Also, even on this site there are taboo topics of discussion or comment. Woe betide all that attempt to have intelligent debate around racial disparities in average intelligence, for instance.

A follow-up/rebuttal in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/opinion/sunday/why-i-use-trigger-warnings.html

I like some of the top-rated comments on this one. If only some triggers matter, then what does that say to those unfortunate enough to have unusual PTSD triggers? It's pretty clear that the two main causes of PTSD encompass a fairly large subset of college students-- combat veterans and rape or domestic abuse victims. As many as 20-40% of those people may have had, or currently have, some PTSD.

If one of them finds clowns as distressing as another finds, say, reminders of gunfire-- doesn't that mean that pretty much everything needs a trigger warning?

If it doesn't mean that, then it does mean that we've chosen to "other" people who have uncommon triggers-- I do have a problem with that. It's like making disabled parking ONLY available for those with some mobility-limitations and not for others. Hip or knee replacement? Okay for you, then. Severe osteoarthritis? Nope. ALS? Not for you either. Wheelchair? Yes, here's your placard.

On some level, this kind of thing constitutes a violation of disability law, even-- because PTSD, the real, diagnosed sort, is a real condition that really impacts life's major activities, and it really constitutes an impairment that can and is accommodated like any other impairment that is severe or pervasive enough to limit access. Offering the accommodation "just in case" is like trying to hand out disability placards at random to anyone that has ever purchased a walking stick, and hoping that one gets it right. This does not follow the process for granting an accommodation for a very real, and very disabling condition.

That's the real question-- does PTSD LIMIT access? (Yes, for some people, it might).

Also, do trigger warnings ALLOW for access for those affected by PTSD? (COMPLETELY un-studied, so far as I can tell-- and actually, PTSD accommodations are not that uncommon on college campuses, and are, as disability accommodations SHOULD be-- individual and idiosyncratic, created with the input of the affected student and his/her treating professional(s).)

If they do, then do they do so in a way which doesn't alter the fundamental nature of the activity? (This is the real sticky point. What IS the "fundamental nature" of a course of study, and is it right to second guess the expert who devised it and included shocking, distressing, or controversial material as a part of that course of study?)

I'd argue that all of those questions are wholly reasonable ones here, and that the answers are troubling, to say the least.

SOME triggers are "reasonably common" (only-- apparently not by relying upon actual data, but on "everyone knows" or "well, anyone can understand that..." kinds of anecdotal information), and others not.

The thing about real PTSD though is that it doesn't really care about what everyone thinks is logical. {sigh}

And before someone starts laughing that one off, it's not at all implausible for a 10yo to be sexually assaulted by a relative at a Halloween party who dressed as a clown. A clown could be just as triggering for a combat vet, who experiences a PTSD event in an urban war zone, and in the midst of carnage sees something incongruous with the surroundings, which draws his attention, and it's this image which is burned into his memory and forever associated with the horrors he has witnessed... a child's clown doll.

But I think the teacher in the NYT piece answered it as well as anyone reasonably could:


and:


The reality is that most sexual assaults and domestic violence go unreported, and digging too deeply could be considered a violation of student privacy, so apart from taking reasonable precautions like the teacher is doing, the only way to discover most PTSD triggers is after the fact.

I thought the professor's approach, which is simply providing notice of what's in the content, seemed sound and not as trendy as the whole "trigger warning" thing -- which seems to often not even mention why there's a trigger. Which seems to make it rather useless.

Students can find synopses of books on Amazon and other places. Since the list of things that could upset people is open-ended, maybe students should research the content of books themselves before reading them. In deciding what courses to take, they could do the same for reading lists that that are posted online.

I agree, Bostonian-- posting reading lists seems the best way to handle this. After all, post-secondary settings are (hypothetically) places for adults, not children. That also serves as a means of GENUINELY empowering those who might struggle with a way to control their own lives (rather than the sense of "being controlled" by external forces).

Trigger warnings-- and I say this on the basis of a fair number of family and friends who have experienced genuine PTSD-- are somewhat patronizing, and may well be isolating in and of themselves. Oh, fireworks aren't triggering for you as a combat veteran? What? Descriptions of others' assaults don't trigger flashbacks of your own??

People who have PTSD have already been traumatized by circumstances that most people cannot truly share in understanding. In a social sense, they are outsiders with a minority identity that they themselves didn't "choose." But trigger warnings serve as a patronizing means of "othering" on that basis, and furthermore, if your alienating experience doesn't meet someone else's specifications, then... it's alienating again. Because you aren't the RIGHT kind of survivor/veteran if your PTSD isn't the "right" sort.

Believe me, in some trauma victims, not responding the way that you are "supposed" to-- that is, to having no particular problem with "trigger warning material" means potentially feeling shame and self-doubt all over again regarding that trauma, and the resultant PTSD. PTSD already comes with a lot of shame that the individual is incapable of managing stress, weak, etc.



Does that make sense? I do get the sense that most of the people using "trigger warnings" are doing so out of a pop-culture understanding of what PTSD actually looks like. "Trigger warnings" do come from internet culture-- and like so much else that does, they may or may not have any particular value or validity when subjected to the rigorous sort of evaluation that decides whether or not they are supportable.

I agree completely both with Bostonian and HowlerKarma.

My favorite comment on that Times piece was the one that said anything can trigger a bad reaction: a smell, a pop song that was playing when the trauma happened, etc. But like HK said, only certain kinds of triggers count in this faculty member's class, and they're the ones that she sees as being triggerish.

Another favorite was the one by Rachel, who pointed out that no one has actually investigated this practice to see if it actually works and that maybe that would be a good idea before embracing it.

I see trigger warnings as simply another extension of the infantilization of school-aged kids through college students, a practice that does them no favors. If a twenty-one-year-old college student needs a "real" grownup to point out what should be upsetting, that student is going to have a lot of trouble in the big mean world next year.

Yeah-- if PTSD is a disability (and I'm saying up front that it probably does constitute a hidden disability), then presumptions about the nature and required accommodations for that disabling condition are just--


well, just plain rude. Presumptuous, even, and wrong-wrong-wrong.

After all, you wouldn't presume to tell someone with disabling rheumatoid arthritis how accommodations for their condition are going to play out without even asking beforehand, would you?

"Oh, I know just what you need. Here, let me tell you."

This is the cardinal rule when following the spirit of an administrative rule like ADA-- never presume what someone else would like, or needs. ASK-- or better still, let them choose whether or not to inform you at all. The individual WITH the condition is the expert on how to live with it, if that makes sense. But the catch is that in a post-secondary setting, it is up to the student to inform administration of the nature and extent of the disabling condition, and to work out what appropriate and reasonable accommodations look like.

Just as it will be in, you know-- the workplace after they finish college. Others aren't responsible for accommodating you when they don't know that you need accommodations to begin with.

Weird but true-- Keifer Sutherland's mannerisms and facial features serve as a personal trigger for me. I've never watched any of his work on film, and don't intend to. I can read about or think about OTHER things related to my traumatic experiences, but for some reason that one thing really bothers me, even after 30 years. I no longer have disabling PTSD, if I ever did-- but my point is that if current stats are anything like accurate, about 10% of college women have experienced a sexual assault, and about half of them may have developed PTSD as a result (this is about the expected rate in women after sexual trauma).

As many as one student in every 30 or 40, then, on a co-ed campus, could be "triggered" by reminders of their trauma. MOST of those students aren't going to be triggered by stranger-with-a-weapon accounts of sexual assault-- because that isn't what happened to most of them. About 90% of them knew the person(s) that did that to them. If college instructors are TRULY interested in eliminating statistically meaningful triggers, avoid things like talking about hyper-masculine behaviors, misogyny, being alone with dates/acquaintances, slightly-creepy, too-smooth, or overly-friendly people, and emotional manipulation or college parties. Because those are the things that most of the sexually assaulted women sitting in their classes could realistically associate with their trauma.



So yes, I reiterate that this is simply nonsense that makes the INSTRUCTORS feel good about being so aware and sensitive and responsive... and actually does very little for the true trauma survivors in their classrooms. It's merely insulting and presumptuous.

Very much like a teacher who tells parents and students what they "need" from a GT program. When you aren't normative, it just plain feels invasive and rude for someone else to TELL you what your own experience "should" be-- and all the more so when they aren't members of your little non-normative tribe to start with, or when they get it wrong.

But I accommodated this already.

Um-- no, you really didn't.

But I did! Look-- it's right here, this thing that I implemented for just this reason! {smiles proudly and points to syllabus}

No, you really didn't. I'm a member of {minority group} and I'm here to talk to you about what I actually need. I was hoping that we could talk about my needs in particular.


But I accommodated all of this already. {puzzled} I know all about _______ (difference), and I already undertook appropriate steps to fix it.

{insert head banging emoticon here}

Telling people that they are perenially oppressed when they are not and that they have the right not to be offended can cause mental health problems, and it also makes them less prepared for life after college. What would the students do if asked to read something by Charles Murray or Heather MacDonald?

Yale’s Halloween Advice Stokes a Racially Charged Debate
By LIAM STACK
New York Times
November 8, 2015

In their defense, nobody should be reading Charles Murray. He's about as relevant as Erich von Däniken.

Sorry Dude, but comments like yours above don't help.

Sometimes using the writings of authors that are challenging and a little (or a lot) "out there" can help the educational process move along. A discussion of creation that includes Erich von Daniken alongside evolution and the Judeo-Christian version might allow students to learn how to discuss a topic that may provoke strong emotions in a publicly appropriate way. The likelihood that a person embraces all three perspectives or is emotionally vested in all three types of writings is low and thus they can learn how to have an intellectual discussion by discussing what is , for the individual student, the less personal, less emotional view.

Learning to objectively evaluate the evidence for and against an authors statements is, to me, one of the main points of education.

Yes, it is hard to know what topic will profoundly affect another person and that is why communication is key. If we cannot, due to a disabling condition, discuss a topic, then we should talk to the professor and figure out alternatives; even as we would find alternatives if we were in a physically impossible class. If we are uncomfortable, challenged, disagree with the professor, or simply don't know how to defend our position on an issue, isn't that why we are in the class? To learn another perspective, to learn how to evaluate evidence, to learn how to defend an opinion based on knowledge and informed belief? Even as we might sign up for an exercise class that is hard, makes us uncomfortable and challenges us, but also increases our abilities?

Dude, that's not true I thoroughly enjoyed reading Chariots of The Gods when I was a kid - it was thought provoking if a tad tenuously stretched. I also enjoy watching Stargate :-)

Personally, I think a lot of these spoiled kids on college campuses need to grow the heck up and accept that not everyone in the world shares their weltanshauung. They need to understand that their virulent victimhood is becoming just as offensive to many hard working people that just deal.

Honestly! I cannot help from reaching the conclusion that encouraging this sort of grubbing around looking for a reason to be a victim is like giving a hypochondriac a medical dictionary. {sigh}

Some of their arguments make Von Daniken's look like Euclidian axioms in comparison.

Point taken about von Däniken and Murray having a place in college, because there's some value to reading junk science and deconstructing it. We don't teach enough critical thinking, and this would be an effective way to do it.

Tragically close to a future coming to us all soon...

educayshun

Stop violating me with your different opinions!

Understanding Charles Murray's strengths and deficiencies requires both intelligence and an open mind. Most people don't have either one, let alone both.

LOL. Good point, mithawk. It also doesn't begin to address the more subtle sort of opinion-slyly-expressed-as-expertise/fact, such as those which are periodically expressed by N. Christakis, referenced on the previous page. I knew that I recognized that name from a hack bit that he published a few years ago.

DOCTOR Christakis is one of those individuals who is primarily a great believer in the origins of his own opinions as some kind of supreme validation of those same opinions. In my own opinion, naturally. I definitely apply a bias filter to anything related to him, and remember that he seems to have a predilection for seeking media attention with outrageous and provocative actions or statements on a semi-regular basis.

Just noting that. He's the Ivy League's answer to Howard Stern, quite bluntly. While I'm not innately feeling the need to be protected from such shenanigans, I also recognize that people like him can (and quite probably DO) cause some harm in the way of collateral damage in their Quixotic engagement in the culture wars. Oh well.

http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

Howler,

I recognized the name as well, but couldn't place it. What was the hack bit he published a few years ago?

stemfun,

That was an informative article. It didn't come out and say it, but the measured IQ differences among different groups has much more to do with culture than with race.

BMJ. 2008. I'm still not exactly over my angst that BMJ even saw fit to publish what was essentially the ranting of a petulant parent, albeit from the pen of a Harvard professor who used his connections and credentials to get it into print.

It was appallingly ill-informed, (and frankly, I personally consider it extremely unprofessional to have used one's credentials that way) and a fair number of actual expert researchers and physicians in the field slapped him pretty hard in response, but the damage was done. The media latched onto the original because it was so--

provocative. Seems to be a trend.

The Rise of the College Crybullies
By ROGER KIMBALL
Wall Street Journal
November 13, 2015

The email that sparked the Yale controversy is at https://www.thefire.org/email-from-...ege-yale-students-on-halloween-costumes/ . I don't think its contents justify the vitriolic reactions of some of the Yale students.

Are you talking about his paper on happiness and social network? What is so objectionable about that? I don't have an opinion. Just curious.

No, I refer to his armchair diagnosis of mass psychogenic illness, because apparently in addition to his other credentials, he's picked up degrees in both pediatric immunology (and outrage) on the side as well. Well, maybe they were honorary degrees. Or independent study or something.

I have no opinion about his wife one way or the other, but there is such a thing as being insensitive to the point of creating a hostile learning environment, surely.

Something that he wrote 7 years ago is irrelevant to what happened at Yale last week. He was calm in spite of being surrounded by an angry mob. He mentioned creating an "intellectual space" at Yale; he was cut off by a pugnacious pseudo-oppressed child of privilege who told him that his job was not about intellectual spaces, but rather to create a home for us! He told the students that while he disagreed with what they were saying, he supported their right to say it completely, that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, and that people who disagree with the students also have a right to speak. They shouted him down.

Who was creating the hostile environment? The calm professor who was calmly trying to discuss basic principles of American constitutional law, or the mob?

The dominance of PC ideology started when I was in college in the mid/late 80s. It was appalling then, and it's far worse now. My eldest will be going to college soon, and I wonder about spending a king's ransom to send him to places where dressing up like a mariachi band is considered to be racist, where administrators kowtow to spoiled children throwing tantrums, and where dissent from PC groupthink is increasingly not tolerated in the name of "sensitivity."

Now I have to write this part so that I won't get e-lynched: I'm not talking about very real problems with racism in this country. I've spent some time in the deep south, and am appalled at the ubiquitous casual racism I see there. And I know it happens all over this country. I'm not talking about that here, nor the very real need to protest it. Okay?

They hate us for our freedoms!

Free speech and individual rights ARE his (and evidently "their"?) thing. I certainly don't begrudge them that, and defend their right to engage in public discourse on the subject.

But he does have a history of courting media attention and controversy on the subject, exploiting his professional position to do so, and that article from 7y ago is only one such example. I bear it in mind (and mention it here) only because he's willing to throw pretty much anyone under the bus in the name of pursuing that idealogical goal (individual rights, apparently).

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/04/wither-goes-free-speech-at-harvard/

Source is FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education


He does have an agenda, whether or not one agrees with it. I'm pointing out that he seems to be an idealogue, operating in the service of that larger agenda. It is what led to that op-ed in BMJ, and I strongly suspect that it led to his wife's e-mail and him standing in a quad surrounded by agitated and screeching students. He went there for the express purpose of making his point. In light of that, of course he was calm-- the wilder the undergrads got, the better his point is made, after all. He does understand how to work the media to make a point.

The ivory tower is filled with idealogues. He's unusual in that his views are more Libertarian than most in that particular milieu.


On a side note, yeah-- won't mom and dad be proud of that video? Ouch.

Sorry, I can't see anything wrong with the quote above, or with his editorial in general. I also thought that his wife's email was balanced, well-written, and carefully considered. If, during that video, he was aware that people would see him defending free expression in front of a mob... well, great. I don't think that defending free expression is only okay when you're certain that no one is recording you on his smartphone.

His editorial mentioned Harvard's reaction a satirical flyer distributed at the college. The satire in question was apparently aimed at what its authors saw as abusive practices at the university. The university's official position deplored its use of "inappropriate language," with RAs being instructed to find out who wrote it. Sounds to me like the university was trying to intimidate the writers.

Interesting. Satire and intimidation...kind of reminds me of Charlie Hebdo. They're satirical and offensive, too. Maybe we should shut them down for inappropriate use of offensive language. Hmm. Or maybe we (and especially college students) should accept that no one has a right to not be offended. This is a basic part of what an education should impart to its students.

Interesting point. However, one may say that the students had a point too -- because they did. Maybe he has a larger, well-developed point, but most people, most of the time they're speaking, have a point to make of some sort. After all, why would one say anything without first having a goal for their speech?
However, I think that a lot of this gets way overblown because people bring a lot of things into these sorts of conversations. Obviously, this is hard to eliminate -- but I think many times this becomes a political clash when perhaps that only inflates and dilutes the matters at hand.

Well, I happen to find his position more appealing (personally) than, say... the usual opinions of Charles Murray or Steve Sailer. Granted. I like and respect Paul Krugman enormously-- but knowing how liberal he leans is pretty important for evaluating his op-ed pieces, no matter how inclined I am to agree with him.

(This assumes that all that was written was true, and that may not be so, either-- in fact, in light of what I know FIRE's usual tactics to be, I think it may have gained a thing or two in the retelling-- I've not fact-checked any of it, just posted it for consideration).

I'm cautioning because I've seen the undercarriage of this particular bus, too.

There IS such a thing as free speech rights being used by the majority to kick those who are already down, just so that the majority can continue doing exactly as they please, and enjoy unfettered access to the privilege that they have enjoyed all their lives-- and that can feel, well-- pretty hostile. Consider the recent public kerfuffles in a lot of locations re: religious displays at Christian holidays. Why it should be offensive for a cashier to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" in December is beyond me, but it certainly angers a fair number of people. Now, that's majority entitlement. The interesting trick, in my mind, is making one's self out to be an Embattled Martyr to the Cause while actually being a member of the established majority. It's fascinating.


This isn't as simple as impaneling an Officially Diverse Committee to Determine What Constitutes Hate Speech. It's also a matter of when individual rights give way to civil compromises in the name of the social contract. Er-- assuming that there IS a social contract, I mean.

Christakis apparently believes that he has a lock on truth here, but the fact is that he might not feel quite so sure of himself at a historically black college, a BlackLivesMatter rally, an inner city junior high school, etc. He might even feel-- gasp-- intimidated. By the words/behaviors of others, even. He ignores the fact that some things are pretty much BOUND to cause discomfort like that to some students at his institution-- students who already feel pretty alienated from the vast, privileged majority who are attending that fine institution.

He fancies that he's being Patrick Henry, I'm sure-- but what if he's actually being Joe McCarthy? There is such a thing as tyranny by majority, and it's why we've got laws to protect, say, disabled children while they are at school, minority voting rights, disgusting hiring practices directed toward women, etc. Those laws exist so that the majority don't do the kinds of things featured in Lord of the Flies, I mean. Otherwise, a certain percentage of the average population will do those kinds of things. Social Darwinists don't see it that way-- they think that kind of construct is just fine. It does self-correct, as history demonstrates. Of course, it's a bit messy, and the timescale is sometimes longer than the people living it like. But what the heck. It's the free market for a better society. Let everyone shout and see who shouts loudest, I guess. Buckle up, because that kind of world is where only the strong (and already privileged) survive-- at least until the unwashed masses have had enough, that is.

Context is everything. I think (personally) that it is critical to recall that the entire thing is mostly a tempest in a teapot, (or maybe just an ivory tower) given that ALL of them are speaking from positions of power, prestige, and yes-- privilege. Christakis is defending HIS OWN privilege, when you get right down to it. Nobody in that video has much claim to so-called "coveted victim status" at all in the first place. On either side.


It'd also be nice if more college professors and students understood that their own words and actions have an impact on others, and that sometimes others are vulnerable in ways they don't understand (because of their own privilege or just excessive navel-gazing). I mean that in every sense of that statement.


Sure. Everyone has freedom of speech in the US. What nobody has is the freedom from the social consequences of that speech. Not even those defending unfettered free speech. Sometimes words do cause actual harm to others. Defending that with "But MY RIGHTS!!" generally makes one a jerk. I happen to believe that being a decent human being trumps my innate right to say whatever I please in any location, at any time, etc. I kind of figure that jokes about some things are going to result in a highly unpleasant afternoon for myself if I make them in a TSA line, for example-- and that furthermore, the disruption that I've caused in that setting might actually HURT OTHER PEOPLE who actually needed for their afternoons to be disruption-free. Freedom OF speech. Yes. But not freedom from the consequences of it, nor from the fact that sometimes other people are collateral damage if I exercise that right injudiciously and selfishly.

AKA, the inextricable intertwining of personal freedom and personal responsibility.

That's how I understood it too.

So true.

Overall, I find myself agreeing with Val's comments the most so far.

My own opinion is that certainly people need to accept responsibility for any and all actions. Insult somebody - expect consequences but asking someone to listen to a well reasoned and civilly delivered argument is far from insulting.

Like Val, I have a real issue with spending half a million dollars to subsidize this infantilism of my or anyone else's voting age 'child'.

There is a larger issue at play, perhaps this is a consequence of the 'college for all' mentality that seems so prevalent these days as Peter Turchin's article alludes:-

overproduction of elites

Yep, in addition to the horrible behavior, the parents just watched her flush their $400K investment down the toilet ($160K for high school, plus $240K for Yale). Who in the world would hire her?

Contrast her behavior with that of Tim Tai, the photojournalist who tried to take photos at the protest in Missouri. He was firm about asserting his rights, and remained polite in the face of a crowd of unreasonable people. Tuition, room, and board at Missouri is probably only $20K per year, but Tim's stock just shot up.

My kids will be watching both videos as case studies of how to, and how not to, behave in public.

How does a public high school (Warde) cost 160k? Are taxes that high?

It may be one of those technologically advanced 21st century private-public prototype schools designed specifically to utilize experimental market-based education and valuation approaches in conjunction with GPA-weighted competitive bid mechanisms in order to maximize profits for shareholders.

If it's already gone though it's IPO, you can check it's stock price and recent quarterly dividends. That should give you a ballpark answer to your question.

I confused Jerelyn Luther, the Yale shreiker from an upper middle class family, with Keely Mullen, the upper-middle class organizer of the Million Student March.

Keely is pushing for free public college, a cancellation of student debt, and a $15 minimum wage. Keely claimed in a TV interview that she came from a working class family but records show that her family owns a million dollar home and that she went to a private high school in Chicago. Despite coming from an upper-middle class family, she managed to accumulate $150K in debt at Northeastern:

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com...p-with-the-million-student-march-p1.html

Is it politically incorrect to say that I can't tell Social Justice Warriors apart because they all sound the same?

This may be where my DD snarkily notes that (and yes, this IS a direct quote);

It's just Tumblr posts all the way down, isn't it?

That is fantastic. I am going to start using it.

Interesting addendum to several of the articles posted in this thread lately:

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/11/myth-of-the-fragile-college-student.html#

Yale President Vows New Efforts to Promote Diversity
Insider Higher Education
November 18, 2015

Mob tactics will continue to be employed when they yield results. "Adding faculty positions on underrepresented groups" means discriminating against the "overrepresented". The more universities hire according to racial quotas, the worse they will be at research and teaching.

Agreed.

Cultivating an awareness of "privilege" is one thing. I'd say that is a universally good thing, in fact. Most college students could stand to cultivate a bit more empathy outside of their own worldview and narrow experiences, no matter what they are. Not a few professors and administrators could use that, as well. I believe that this may have at one time been "sensitivity training" in the academic lexicon; most of my colleagues (privileged, all of us) treated this as little more than a joke, I'm sorry to say.

It used to be that this was what higher education was best at-- broadening and deepening awareness and understanding of the world, beyond what even an autodidact would naturally encounter and learn. How incredibly sad that such a thing is being sacrificed for the comfort (or maybe just the hubris) of a vocal minority.

Ubiquitous trigger warnings and safe spaces that muzzle free speech are far past awareness and sensitivity-- and the goings on in some places in higher ed go far, far beyond that at this point. Those protesting are riding a fine line between civil disobedience/protest and tactics more often associated with mob rule or domestic terrorism. It's as though these students want to UN-do all the good that the protests of the 1960's accomplished in making higher education a place which didn't merely serve to insulate the elite from the real world and ideology that felt alien to them.

Now I have this strange need to re-read Bonfire of the Vanities, somehow.

The University of Chicago has taken a stand for free speech and thought:

No Hiding in Hyde Park
by GILBERT T. SEWALL
American Spectator
August 29, 2016

An NYT article on the letter:
University of Chicago Strikes Back Against Campus Political Correctness
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA, MITCH SMITH and STEPHANIE SAUL
AUG. 26, 2016

Does the US have laws the limit free speech when it is likely to cause harm eg. Provoking racial hatred etc?

Theoretically, but I think the burden of proof is on those to whom violence is committed against to prove that the speech actually had a discernible impact on someone's actions.

I can't actually think of a case when someone was held liable for their speech that may have contributed to an act of violence.

Here is a link to the University of Chicago's aforementioned Report by the Committee on Freedom of Expression, which is easily found online. It contains a number of interesting thoughts.

Wikipedia has an entry on "hate speech", with a section discussing US Supreme Court case law. As a separate issue from legal matters, in a "court of public opinion", there is generally little tolerance for "hate speech"... that is to say, most people would tend to avoid it, and those engaging in it.

Erika Christakis left Yale because of the strident reaction to her email, as she explains in a recent essay. I would have reservations about sending a child to Yale. It appear that unpopular views are not argued against but shouted down.

My Halloween email led to a campus firestorm — and a troubling lesson about self-censorship
Washington Post
October 28, 2016

I'm not encouraging my kids to apply to places like Yale or my own alma mater (an elite college which has watered down its curriculum in recent years). When I hear about this stuff, I think about the escalation of tuition and the costs of textbooks as crippling factors in the cost of higher education. For example, a quick web search told me that the cost of Yale this year is over $68,000.

The protesting students there would get a lot more sympathy from me if they were complaining about problems that have real and lasting effects on lower-income* and minority students, rather than...Halloween costumes.

*And at $68K per year and rising at so-called elite colleges, these days, "lower income" means <98th percentile, while "can barely afford it" means ~99th to 99.5th percentile. $68K (likely $70K+ next year) for that? No way.

I agree with Bostonian and Val - I will not pay for this.

This descent into mob rule at what had been a haven for intelligent debate across most of its existence is alarming.

Is there any alternative to college? College is, for better or worse, one of the stops one has to make on the way to many cognitively rewarding professions. When I hear these stories my reaction is "ok - that place is off the list". Eventually there may not be much of a list left. Maybe there is less craziness in the hard sciences ...

I expect that my children will run the college gauntlet, but your question reminded me of this recent article.

Wall Street’s Frantic Push to Hire Coders
Hugh Son
Bloomberg
October 28, 2016

Why Universities Must Choose One Telos: Truth or Social Justice
by Jonathan Haidt
October 21, 2016

My eldest is applying to colleges. His interests are very technical, and so his choices are all focused in that area. We got lucky there. I feel much better about paying a small fortune for one of these institutions. When people are busy learning about satellite systems, complex analysis, and materials science, they have less time and energy to protest that the cafeteria staff is guilty of cultural appropriation because the sushi rice was underdone.

Actually, looking back on my own college years, today's techie students (like those of my day) are probably just grateful to have 45 minutes for lunch between lecture and lab, underdone rice or no. Oh, I do not miss that.

College Students Suing Over Free Speech Get a Powerful Ally: The Trump Administration
Sadie Gurman and Michelle Hackman
Wall Street Journal
June 13, 2018

The web site of Speech First is here.