Saul's Argument Analysis

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.

After reading the article I concur with the author’s views on colleges coddling students who are offended by words or small actions is doing more harm than good. The article covered the issues in detail and gave many examples of the conception before the 1980’s when children could roam free in the world with less worry for parents to where next generation who had more protective parents because of the increase of kidnappings, removal of physical activities in school, school shootings, and bullying after the 1980’s.The authors discuss how coddling is not good for students, society, the workplace, government or the future. Coddling removes cognitive thinking and the use of good critical thinking skills. Coddling will force students to think with emotion instead of logic. Society will not always bend over backwards to appease ones feelings or change to make someone feel comfortable. Thinking with emotions can create a fog that can hinder ones view of reality.

Conversations in the media and on college campuses regarding trigger warnings, safe spaces, and microaggressions have been impassioned, to say the least. Many have found such requests to be reasonable, because students, in essence, are seeking a respectful atmosphere in which vulnerabilities are respected and insults are not tolerated. Critics have argued that designating some spaces as “safe” implies that others are “unsafe,” and it follows, then, that these “unsafe” spaces should be made “safer.” To what end? Even those who express support wonder: where to draw the line? What topics warrant trigger warnings? Who decides what constitutes a microaggression? That certain subjects demand delicate treatment in the classroom is hardly

Due to the relative newness of microaggressions as a discussion topic in human social affairs the definition can differ when used in different contexts. Hoover defines microaggressions as “… a subtle conveyance of bias or stereotype...” in “The Comfortable Kid” (106.) Boysen’s article, “Teacher and Student Perceptions of Microaggressions in College Classrooms,” which uses the definition of “subtle slights and insults that are offensive but largely unintentional” for microaggression (123,) is slightly different yet follows the same main points. Contrastingly in “A Critical Analysis of Anti-Discrimination Law and Microaggressions in Academia” microaggressions are avenues used to physically discriminate against minorities that are more the result of a

These even consist of everyday sayings that have no real weight when considered as aggressive. If students were taught about controversial issues throughout school, instead of shying away from them, than many of the things that are listed microaggressions would be considered no more than mere words. Additionally trigger warnings, which are absurd to begin with, would also not have to be used in educational settings. The article also talks about how words can be violent, and yes this is a true statement. Just because words can be violent does not mean that we should start to eliminate them. Teaching others to be more open minded on brash issues would allow many words to become much less hurtful and open up a greater since of shared

Trigger Warnings on College Campuses According to the Harvard Political Review, a safe space regarding a college campus is defined as “protection from emotional discomfort.” Although being comfortable about yourself and your opinions is a good thing, having designated spaces where people can not voice their opinion because it “could hurt someone” is not. In an interview with political and civil rights activists and former advisor to former president Barack Obama, Van Jones. He was asked where he stood on the subject of “safe spaces” on college campuses.

Minikel-Lacocque, J. (2012). Racism, College, and the Power of Words Racial Microaggressions Reconsidered. American Educational Research Journal, June 2013, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 432–465

The Federal Government should restrict hate speech on all college campuses. This is due to a variety of reasons. Under the first point of analysis, one can observe that hate speech codes have a tendency to foster a more tolerant environment by teaching a difference between right and wrong (Sommers 1). Often times, college students do not realize the impact that their words may have on others (2). The problem is rarely identified in primary and secondary schools, and it worsens as the students approach the college level (1).

During this past summer, The University of North Carolina (UNC) was infected with a micro-aggressive pandemic. Micro-aggression is everyday put downs or insults which is towards a socially devalued group of well-intended people who may be unaware that they have engaged in such biased behaviors (Sue, D. W., Sue, D., & Sue, D. W., 2003). The entire campus was tormented with the politically correct malady. The University officials discharged guidelines to the staff on issues ranging from gender-neutral dress codes to conversations about women's shoes in hopes of spreading off the atrocious disease. One of the guidelines of the University's Employee Forum advised against complimenting a woman on her chores of footwear. Campus Reform was the first to the Universities micro-aggression policy. It covered everything from Islam to transgenderism. To compliment a lady on her choice of shoes would be considered micro-aggression meaning "I notice how you look and dress more than I value your intellectual contributions. How you look is really important." (Todd Starnes, 2016)

Trigger warnings are hurting mental health on campus of universities. There are many things that are mentioned in class that makes students feel uncomfortable or they most likely do not agree with. In my opinion, I think that this is a real problem with colleges these days. Nonetheless, I do not think that some professors intend to offend students when they ask certain questions. For instance, if a professor asks an African American student where they were born or where they are from, then the African American may be offended because that means that the professor was implying that he or she was not an actual American. This is an example of a Microaggression. Microaggressions are defined as small actions or word choices that seem to not intentionally

The article focuses on an audience of the academic community to inform them about the current problem of college students being thinned skin when it comes to discussing various topics, and give them a brief solution so this does not continue in the future. The article begins by describing two terms that have become prevalent in a college campus. First, microaggressions 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() The authors began to refer to this term as trigger warnings, which alerts a professor that

Besides the struggle that come with being able to fund their college education, the racial cognitions associated with the black race have led to ongoing racism and racial microaggressions that more so affects black women’s college experience at predominantly white institutions than historical black colleges and universities. D’Augelli and Hershberger conducted a survey of a pool of black students that resulted in “the majority (89%) of black students indicated having experience some sort of negative racial experience (harassment, racial remark, feelings of mistreatment, etc.) (Shabazz 2015).” Racial microaggressions (RMAs) refer to subtle, yet derogatory communications toward individuals of color (Chambers 2012). These racial microagressions are commonly seen in the academic settings at predominantly white institutions, which tend to perpetuate negative stereotypes. Studies suggest that RMAs remain commonly experienced by many non-White students. For blacks, an example stereotype that is typically expressed is the perception that black students are not intelligent by their classmates and professors. Within the study, a recurring experience for black women was that they were perceived as not being smart enough. Black students tend to form fraternities, sororities, and organizations within themselves to feel more valued whether that may be academically, personally, socially, or culturally. Within the classrooms, dorms, parties, or dining hall are example of places that

The goal of the author writing this text was to inform the incoming college freshman to know a bit of what is involved within their acceptance on entering The University of Chicago, along with the disciplines that have been clarified among their acceptance of people of all backgrounds. In the letter it is mentioned that civility and mutual respect is very vital to the school, and as freedom of expression is accepted, it doesn’t mean that the students and staff have the ability to harass or threaten others. The author explains in the letter that “their commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called “trigger warnings” … and we do not condone the creation of intellectual “safe spaces”. In other words, this explains that

It is overwhelming that the original connotation behind safe spaces has gradually stemmed into different trajectories. In this vein, the sentiments and reactions that hovered the web in awe of the acceptance letter sent by Dean John Ellison, from the University of Chicago, to the incoming class of 2020 took coals to Newcastle. In the letter, the dean apprised the lot that, “Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called “trigger warnings,” we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual “safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.” Some people,

Colleges across the country have implemented free speech codes in their campuses knowing it violates the first amendment right. They go as far as quarantining the students to a free speech zone as if the student’s opinion or point of view is an infectious deadly virus. Standing in the free speech zone singles you out and allows other students to see you as a target allowing them to label you as a racist, homophobe, or any other derogatory label they can come up with. Some learning institutions have also created safe spaces to further restrict student’s first amendment rights while protecting other student’s emotions. This creates sensitivity based censorship where anything that seems hateful or hurtful gets ban, so this closed-minded attitude