Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education describing a new campus politics of sexual paranoia—and was then subjected to a long investigation after students who were offended by the article and by a tweet she’d sent filed Title IX complaints against her. In June, a professor protecting himself with a pseudonym wrote an essay for Vox describing how gingerly he now has to teach. “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” the headline said. A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke.

Two terms have risen quickly from obscurity into common campus parlance. Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless. For example, by some campus guidelines, it is a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American “Where were you born?,” because this implies that he or she is not a real American. Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response. For example, some students have called for warnings that Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart describes racial violence and that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might “trigger” a recurrence of past trauma.

Some recent campus actions border on the surreal. In April, at Brandeis University, the Asian American student association sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians through an installation on the steps of an academic hall. The installation gave examples of microaggressions such as “Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?” and “I’m colorblind! I don’t see race.” But a backlash arose among other Asian American students, who felt that the display itself was a microaggression. The association removed the installation, and its president wrote an e-mail to the entire student body apologizing to anyone who was “triggered or hurt by the content of the microaggressions.”

The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. That’s partly right, although there are important differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the 1980s and ’90s. That movement sought to restrict speech (specifically hate speech aimed at marginalized groups), but it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. The current movement is largely about emotional well-being. More than the last, it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psychological harm. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse.................

These same children grew up in a culture that was (and still is) becoming more politically polarized. Republicans and Democrats have never particularly liked each other, but survey data going back to the 1970s show that on average, their mutual dislike used to be surprisingly mild. Negative feelings have grown steadily stronger, however, particularly since the early 2000s. Political scientists call this process “affective partisan polarization,” and it is a very serious problem for any democracy. As each side increasingly demonizes the other, compromise becomes more difficult. A recent study shows that implicit or unconscious biases are now at least as strong across political parties as they are across races...............

By almost any definition, critical thinking requires grounding one’s beliefs in evidence rather than in emotion or desire, and learning how to search for and evaluate evidence that might contradict one’s initial hypothesis. But does campus life today foster critical thinking? Or does it coax students to think in more-distorted ways?

kalm wrote:Interesting read on Microaggressions, vindictive protectiveness, the flight to safety, and an often appaling neo-political correctness that is making America stupider. But let's face it, most of you conservatives are simply to lazy to read a long article and/or too dumb to understand the politics behind it or why I posted it to begin with.

OL FU wrote:I didn't read the article because I am too lazy, too dumb and mostly too bored to care. So I don't know what perspective this brings or position it takes. But here is why this bores me. I got through the first part where they were talking about asking different nationalities where they were born implying they weren't Americans. That may be true of some asking the question. But honestly, it is not unusual for me to ask someone with an accent (only after I have gotten to know them) where they are from? I ask mainly for two reasons. One, if I get to know someone I am truly interested in them and part of them is where they are from and two, I am constantly amazed at the diversity of the American people. It is something that makes me proud of our country.

So it bores me because from my perspective it is pretty damn easy. If kalm and I were sitting on a bar stool sharing a drink and discussing politics, I wouldn't think a damn thing about it if he said Carly was too ugly to be president (mainly because I know it was over drinks and for laughs). On the other hand, a person running for president making the same type of comment would immediately be disqualified from getting my support because ..... well because that comment is just damn stupid as well as hurtful, sexist and stereotypical.

So if I missed the point, let me know and I will read the article.

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:I didn't read the article because I am too lazy, too dumb and mostly too bored to care. So I don't know what perspective this brings or position it takes. But here is why this bores me. I got through the first part where they were talking about asking different nationalities where they were born implying they weren't Americans. That may be true of some asking the question. But honestly, it is not unusual for me to ask someone with an accent (only after I have gotten to know them) where they are from? I ask mainly for two reasons. One, if I get to know someone I am truly interested in them and part of them is where they are from and two, I am constantly amazed at the diversity of the American people. It is something that makes me proud of our country.

So it bores me because from my perspective it is pretty damn easy. If kalm and I were sitting on a bar stool sharing a drink and discussing politics, I wouldn't think a damn thing about it if he said Carly was too ugly to be president (mainly because I know it was over drinks and for laughs). On the other hand, a person running for president making the same type of comment would immediately be disqualified from getting my support because ..... well because that comment is just damn stupid as well as hurtful, sexist and stereotypical.

So if I missed the point, let me know and I will read the article.

Read the article when you get a chance. Some issues require depth and I think this is one of those. There's a real threat to reason based thought coming mostly from the left and I believe ( ) you and I might agree on this one.

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Read the article when you get a chance. Some issues require depth and I think this is one of those. There's a real threat to reason based thought coming mostly from the left and I believe ( ) you and I might agree on this one.

Really. Bummer

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Really. Bummer

You're becoming as unbearable as Cleets!

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:I didn't read the article because I am too lazy, too dumb and mostly too bored to care. So I don't know what perspective this brings or position it takes. But here is why this bores me. I got through the first part where they were talking about asking different nationalities where they were born implying they weren't Americans. That may be true of some asking the question. But honestly, it is not unusual for me to ask someone with an accent (only after I have gotten to know them) where they are from? I ask mainly for two reasons. One, if I get to know someone I am truly interested in them and part of them is where they are from and two, I am constantly amazed at the diversity of the American people. It is something that makes me proud of our country.

So it bores me because from my perspective it is pretty damn easy. If kalm and I were sitting on a bar stool sharing a drink and discussing politics, I wouldn't think a damn thing about it if he said Carly was too ugly to be president (mainly because I know it was over drinks and for laughs). On the other hand, a person running for president making the same type of comment would immediately be disqualified from getting my support because ..... well because that comment is just damn stupid as well as hurtful, sexist and stereotypical.

So if I missed the point, let me know and I will read the article.

Read the article when you get a chance. Some issues require depth and I think this is one of those. There's a real threat to reason based thought coming mostly from the left and I believe ( ) you and I might agree on this one.

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:I didn't read the article because I am too lazy, too dumb and mostly too bored to care. So I don't know what perspective this brings or position it takes. But here is why this bores me. I got through the first part where they were talking about asking different nationalities where they were born implying they weren't Americans. That may be true of some asking the question. But honestly, it is not unusual for me to ask someone with an accent (only after I have gotten to know them) where they are from? I ask mainly for two reasons. One, if I get to know someone I am truly interested in them and part of them is where they are from and two, I am constantly amazed at the diversity of the American people. It is something that makes me proud of our country.

So it bores me because from my perspective it is pretty damn easy. If kalm and I were sitting on a bar stool sharing a drink and discussing politics, I wouldn't think a damn thing about it if he said Carly was too ugly to be president (mainly because I know it was over drinks and for laughs). On the other hand, a person running for president making the same type of comment would immediately be disqualified from getting my support because ..... well because that comment is just damn stupid as well as hurtful, sexist and stereotypical.

So if I missed the point, let me know and I will read the article.

Read the article when you get a chance. Some issues require depth and I think this is one of those. There's a real threat to reason based thought coming mostly from the left and I believe ( ) you and I might agree on this one.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Read the article when you get a chance. Some issues require depth and I think this is one of those. There's a real threat to reason based thought coming mostly from the left and I believe ( ) you and I might agree on this one.

And this is news to you?

"Reason based thought" to a leftie means you agree with them lock, stock, and two smoking barrels. Anything else and you're an idiot.

JohnStOnge wrote:Liberalism created the situation.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
And this is news to you?

"Reason based thought" to a leftie means you agree with them lock, stock, and two smoking barrels. Anything else and you're an idiot.

You, of course unwittingly, are proving one of the author's points.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
You, of course unwittingly, are proving one of the author's points.

Yeah. Newsflash: Donks and conks don't like each other. And a lot of the reason WHY it's gotten so bad is precisely what the author addresses in this article. The donks insistence that words....language....THOUGHT, MUST be "cleansed" from our vocabulary lest we offend someone's delicate sensibilities....I mean, honestly: microagressions? Seriously? That concept is fucking laughable--but not to donks! Oh no....if there's a negative, mean, or demeaning way to take something, they make SURE that's the way it's taken--by god, they'll be sure and let you know what you should be offended by--even if you aren't. Those liberal college professor fucks created these monsters, and now even THEY are afraid of them...

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah. Newsflash: Donks and conks don't like each other. And a lot of the reason WHY it's gotten so bad is precisely what the author addresses in this article. The donks insistence that words....language....THOUGHT, MUST be "cleansed" from our vocabulary lest we offend someone's delicate sensibilities....I mean, honestly: microagressions? Seriously? That concept is fucking laughable--but not to donks! Oh no....if there's a negative, mean, or demeaning way to take something, they make SURE that's the way it's taken--by god, they'll be sure and let you know what you should be offended by--even if you aren't. Those liberal college professor fucks created these monsters, and now even THEY are afraid of them...

But I like you!

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
But I like you!

And here you've spent YEARS denying that you're a donk. All that work goes down the drain in one 4 word post.

CID1990 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
And here you've spent YEARS denying that you're a donk. All that work goes down the drain in one 4 word post.

klam swears up and down that he's something other than a run of the mill, check every box, typical American liberal

being perceived otherwise is important to him

Ivytalk wrote:Haidt's articles are always stimulating. If you can weather the microaggressions that permeate the CS poli board without running off whining to the Mods, I guess there's hope for you.

Seriously, I'm glad I went to school when I did. The best teacher I had at Harvard was a grad student who taught a section of a popular political philosophy course and used his own reading list that was more challenging and demanding than the standard course list. He encouraged his students to think critically and to engage in open debate in class. We read some of the great thinkers -- John of Salisbury, Weber,Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, etc. -- and our papers were graded on the basis of the reasoning we used in responding to the essay topics. There was no preconceived correct answer. Nowadays, this individual might have been brought up on charges at one of our sensitive, coddling colleges. I looked him up recently, and he is a tenured professor of history at an excellent Midwestern college. There is far too much cocooning of our young people these days, and not just intellectually, and it starts well before college.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Haidt's articles are always stimulating. If you can weather the microaggressions that permeate the CS poli board without running off whining to the Mods, I guess there's hope for you.

Seriously, I'm glad I went to school when I did. The best teacher I had at Harvard was a grad student who taught a section of a popular political philosophy course and used his own reading list that was more challenging and demanding than the standard course list. He encouraged his students to think critically and to engage in open debate in class. We read some of the great thinkers -- John of Salisbury, Weber,Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, etc. -- and our papers were graded on the basis of the reasoning we used in responding to the essay topics. There was no preconceived correct answer. Nowadays, this individual might have been brought up on charges at one of our sensitive, coddling colleges. I looked him up recently, and he is a tenured professor of history at an excellent Midwestern college. There is far too much cocooning of our young people these days, and not just intellectually, and it starts well before college.

I laugh when I here this sort of thing. Coincidentally, I was reading an article over the weekend that was talking about need to maintain a leash on students. It discussed teaching them how to think vs. telling them the answers or allowing them to wander off on their own (mentally) without the proper tools.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
And this is news to you?

"Reason based thought" to a leftie means you agree with them lock, stock, and two smoking barrels. Anything else and you're an idiot.

You, of course unwittingly, are proving one of the author's points.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
You, of course unwittingly, are proving one of the author's points.

Not really...the author confirms Z's point.

Liberalism, as a whole, has been taken over by extremism. At this point, most middle ground people would be considered conservatives by Liberals because those middle ground people are not progressing. And, of course, not, "progressing" is seen by Liberals as not...progressing...therefor those middle ground people are a block against the future, so they need to be publicly scolded, vilified, and, ironically, marginalized.

Welcome to the frightening future.

Chizzang wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Not really...the author confirms Z's point.

Liberalism, as a whole, has been taken over by extremism. At this point, most middle ground people would be considered conservatives by Liberals because those middle ground people are not progressing. And, of course, not, "progressing" is seen by Liberals as not...progressing...therefor those middle ground people are a block against the future, so they need to be publicly scolded, vilified, and, ironically, marginalized.

Welcome to the frightening future.

Every good idea gets hijacked by the extremists...
We have an entire political system where each politician has to pretend they're devoutly faithful
lest they throw away the fringe vote

The lunatic fringe co-opts and over-runs everything worth practicing in small measure

So here we are...