Are our universities teaching about or reinforcing hypersensitivity of students around the country?
The Atlantic recently published an article about vindictive protectiveness, which the magazine defines as an aim, “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.”
Finally I have a term to use for the phenomenon I have felt since entering a university. I think most of us can think of a time when we said something in a classroom or at a party we didn’t realize would incur the vicious wrath of the listeners who condemn us with accusations of insensitivity, aggression, etc.
The Atlantic cites the recent trend of requests for trigger warnings from professors during lectures, the rise of the term microaggression and the use of emotional reasoning as evidence among current students has lead to the institutionalization of ideological protection from differing ideas, opinions and debate about uncomfortable issues.
Honestly, I feel and see these trends almost everyday as an IU student. I don’t think I’ve had many conversations with people who disagree with me that hasn’t ended in me being either vilified as an amoral person or my position being rejected as having no merit just because I have a differing opinion.
The Atlantic argues these trends have far-reaching implications that threaten the scholarship and academic integrity of America’s higher education institutions, and I have to wholeheartedly agree.
It is dangerous to reject certain subjects in current events or history just because someone in the classroom might be offended for various reasons. The purpose of a university is to train students how to think critically, which doesn’t include limiting students to certain modes of thinking that ignores any subject or argument that makes them uncomfortable.
Another concern is the use of trigger warnings in lectures, which would have the professor issue a caveat regarding any material that could bring up traumatic experiences to students in the class. While the definition of a trigger warning is related to students who suffer from PTSD, many students have called for trigger warning against material they find politically offensive or calling for trigger warnings on literature that can contain triggers.
A task force at Oberlin College issued a recommendation in 2013, “that materials that might trigger negative reactions among students be avoided altogether unless they ‘contribute directly’ to course goals.” I’m sure a majority of university educators wouldn’t assign material that doesn’t contribute directly to course goals, and I certainly don’t think they should censor those materials if they think a student will have a negative reaction, which could be construed in any way.
Psychiatrist Sarah Roff pointed out in a Chronicle for Higher Education article, “Treatment, not trigger warnings,” that her main concern about the hypersensitivity of students to trigger warnings is it might end up, “creating an atmosphere in which (students) are encouraged to believe that there is something dangerous or damaging about discussing difficult aspects of our history.”
This trend of hypersensitivity among American college students with uncomfortable issues, debates and triggers has lead to a severe cognitive inflexibility that does not allow room for any ideas that differ from the dominant. While it is important to not intentionally offend or make anyone uncomfortable, censoring course material or your ideas in order to avoid accusations of political incorrectness is not fostering the “safe space” students desire, only an exclusive space where everyone is morally obligated to think along the same lines.
rcm2@indiana.edu
@RachelCMiller1
