Section 2
Week 7
In this article, the authors discuss the consequences of trigger warnings within higher education. College students are demanding protection from words and ideas because of this new low threshold for offense. I agree that this can be very limiting to our education and it is in a way “coddling.” Without exposure to certain issues, we aren’t so much protecting students from trauma or offense as we are avoiding or even prolonging those issues. There should be an extent to how much we filter what we learn and what we are allowed to speak up about. No doubt are there acts of hate that shouldn’t be given platform; however, the definitions of the types of offensive statements mentioned in the article have broadened to the point of silencing viewpoints that could foster critical thinking and critical discourse. The article talks specifically about the effects on mental health, such as how a “campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprising similar to….causes of depression and anxiety.” Not only this, but I feel like by encouraging the policing of speech, it could also inadvertently encourage hostility, which is completely contradictory to the intention of protecting students. Doing things like practically omitting parts of history, changing the names of concepts to words with different connotations, or teaching people to tiptoe around controversial topics, ultimately does more harm than good, especially for those these methods are meant to protect. What happens once we leave the campus?
Question: Where is the line drawn between being open to free speech and tolerating hate?
References:
1. Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2015). “The Coddling of the Asian American Mind.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company. Retrieved November 5, 2017.
2. [Digital image]. (2016, August). Retrieved November 5, 2017, from https://themindlessphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/maxresdefault.jpg?w=676
No comments:
Post a Comment