In Honor Of Daughter Who Felt Weird In Class Once

In order to uphold the integrity of our democracy, constitution and higher education standards, there must be an effort to preserve free speech on college campuses. However, in equal measure as illustrated in the First Amendment, students should also be protected from hate speech and provided an equal chance of receiving a safe education. Perhaps it is beneficial to also consider however, that a ‘safe’ education should not be misinterpreted as an entirely un-offensive one. In order to assist in the political discussion and recommended courses of action regarding free speech on college campus, political philosophers’ John Stuart Mill and John Rawls texts’ will be referred to and analyzed in this essay.

It is made clear that college students are quick to form an opinion which doesn’t expand knowledge and can show unintelligence. Many people, more specifically protesters, believe one side and won’t open up and listen to the other side. Frank Bruni, an Op-Ed Columnist for the New York Times and the author of 3 New York Times best sellers in 2015, 2009, and 2002, tells us that the college protesters are wrong. His argument states that the college students need to be educated more on the whole subject because lacking education can essentially lead to being biased or sticking with the one side you believe in. The students were protesting a guest speaker, Charles Murray, who is identified as anti-gay, racist, and sexist. Although the guest speaker’s beliefs are terrible, the students should hear what he has to say. Frank Bruni’s “The Dangerous Saftey of College” presents an effective logical appeal; however, it lacks clear and concise evidence along with not presenting an emotional appeal to connect with the audience.

Lukianoff and Haidt are pointing out to readers how college campuses have become sensitive. They are showing readers who do not know much about the topic how serious this issue has become. They are also pointing out that microaggressions are becoming a problem. People take offense to comments they think are offensive, even if they are not meant to be harmful.

College is a time when most individuals are experiencing major changes and begin to explore new perspectives. The transition in becoming more independent, creating new insights and peer influence are key factors in changing the perspective of an individual. Students are faced with new ideas from their professors, family and fellow peers. Through that acquired knowledge many students decide that they either agree or disagree with the perspectives that they are taught. Allowing the right of ‘Free Speech’ on public college campuses has become an important issue that many public colleges are starting to address. In college students are capable of

Being Americans, there are a few things the can get us steaming in no time, that can make our moods switch up in the blink of an eye. Nine times out of ten, one of these topics falls under a general conversation that goes to deep into religion or politics. In Juan Williams’s

In the article “Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Free Speech, too” published in the New York Times by Sophie Downes, Downes argues in response to a letter sent out by the dean of the University of Chicago. The letter states that safe spaces and trigger warnings were an issue deterring students from having free speech and therefore would not be supported on the Chicago campus anymore. Downes argues that the letter was just a poor attempt to advert attention away from the real issues on the campus—ones that the dean will not meet with student council about and will not talk about at all. Sophie Downes argues that safe spaces and trigger warnings actually encourage free space and enhance support and community—two values that the dean said were deterred by the existence of them.

In Lukianoff and Haidt’s essay, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” the authors contend today’s college students want to be protected from any words that might harm them. The authors argue doing so harms them in other ways.

“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” (Lukianoff and Haidt 44). Colleges are sheltering their students from words and ideas that students do not like or are found to be offensive. Affecting their education and cognitive skills, scientists are warning colleges to refrain from coddling the students and allowing other viewpoints to be spoken. People are speaking their minds, saying their own views; however, some people are over sensitive and take these viewpoints offensively. In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt successfully argues using rhetorical questions, specific examples, and affective visuals that protecting college students from words and ideas deteriorates their education and mental health.

Author Aaron Hanlon gave his version of why "Coddling students aren't the causes of a mental health crisis on campus, they are just paving in the culture war." (Hanlon, 2015). Studies held in Atlantic colleges "Coddling of the American Mind" by Lukianoff and Haidt is what Hanlon counter claims. He finds their article offensive, argumentative and liberal. Hanlon goes on to talk about a movement going on at college campuses is to get rid of the terms or slurs that can be seen as harmful and offensive. He states "campus culture devoted to policy speech and punishing speakers" is saying students on campus might have a higher chance of being depressed or having anxiety while attending college. Hanlon speaks on an academic and professional pressures increasing accessibility and reducing sleep, sexual epidemics, all these and more are factors that

Cognitive distortions are said to be the ways in which our brain convinces us of something that is not true. College students experience cognitive distortions more often than none. The cognitive distortions in which college students experience would include the feeling of being a failure per not doing as well as you thought you did on a test, the rules we mentally make for ourselves, or negative global labeling. Cognitive distortions are believed to make us believe that information presented to us is rational and accurate when its goal is to make us continue to feel bad about ourselves. In the article, “The coddling of the American mind”, the authors, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt examines what they believe in the fact that professors are protecting students’ minds through warnings of offensive materials, which they believe encourages students to believe that it is damaging and dangerous to discuss certain aspects of our history (2015). College students endure these and many other cognitive distortions, but we are often made to believe that these distortions are acceptable simply because students’ minds are allowed to become more open to new ideas and new people due to the toning down of the perceptual state of mind to outrage and discomfort (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015).

“Neither a Wallflower Nor a Paris Geller Be” by Rebecca Schuman is a witty article about classroom participation in college lectures. This article is primarily directed towards college students around ages 18 to 25. This is obvious through Schuman’s references to professors from the student viewpoint and through direct addresses to the students who are reading the article. She also uses the pronoun us to refer to herself as a professor and to speak on behalf of college professors in general. Additionally, in an attempt to relate to students, Schuman references the struggle that students face when it comes to shyness, overbearing classmates, and completing reading assignments. These college students are of all genders and all races/ethnicities.

In his editorial, “The Year of the Imaginary College Student,” Hua Hsu asserts that “alarm about offense-seeking college students say[s] more about critics than the actual state of affairs.” Hsu begins his article by discussing James O’Keefe’s attempt at Vassar College to depict that college students are as politically sensitive as they appear. He goes on to demonstrate that college students are getting increasingly more “hypersensitive.” Hsu then questions the “surge of interest in campus life,” wondering why people who are not in college are questioning the behavior of those in college. Next, Hsu states that this panic about “offense-seeking college students” says more about the people criticizing rather than the system. Elucidating, he

Twenge researched and analyzed trends in mental health over four different generations. The most recent and current generation being named iGen (internet generation) had a massive spike in mental health issues when plotted on a graph and this was proven to be directly related to social media. The authors explain that our current generation isn’t able to cope with “rude” or “offensive” ideas as the trend grows for protecting our kids from harmful words. Thus, directly affecting the education style of Liberal Science where sparked debates in class is optimal for

Jaded from seeing humanities uprisings first hand, he knows that they are nothing more than symptoms of an underlying disease. Because of his experience, he is able to see more deeply into the truth of American ideology, but he is unable to do much about it. As he says, “Once you figure out what a joke everything is, being the Comedian's the only thing that makes sense” (Moore and Gibson, Part 2, Pg. 13).

Today, comedy news shows are becoming progressively more popular, and in so, becoming a new source of information – which may, or may not, be a positive consequence. Most comedians twist the truth in order to connect to people and make them laugh. The article “A Serious Business: What Can Comedy Do?” suggests some comedians “use logic to make painful things make sense” (O’Hara 108). Satirical comedy acts as a relief mechanism in that it comforts people that may be wary about a certain subject, especially in the realm of politics. Similarly, Peter McGraw and Joel Warner discuss how comedy can act as a coping mechanism. The authors conclude that “activists all over the world have been using comedy as a form of political protest” (McGraw & Warner 147). Iain Ellis writes about how political satirists do more than just deliver jokes, they use satire “to expose, ridicule, and–implicitly–call for action and change” (Ellis 152). Ellis contends that comedy can make a difference by its constant presence in our daily lives. Socrates, Plato, and even shows like South Park believe that humor is a way to persuade others. One of the most effective expressions of humor to affect social change has been the inclusion of satire. Although humor often provides people a welcome escape from the burdens of their daily lives, the satirical comedy deconstructs social issues in various ways as a means to persuade the