The Coddling Of The American Mind Summary

As American universities and colleges grow their demographics, diversity and ideas there is a continued and an accelerated debate regarding freedom of speech within these higher education institutions. College campuses are struggling to simultaneously provide a learning environment that is inclusive to traditionally unrepresented students while also providing an environment that allows for ideas to be challenged and debated no matter how offensive or controversial.

In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind,” writers Greg Lukianoff and Jonathon Haidt address today’s college campus culture of oversensitivity and how targeting microaggressions by shielding sensitive topics from students may be modeling cognitive distortions. Cognitive distortion is a way our mind twists words to convince us of something that isn’t true to reinforce negative thinking. Since college administrators changed ways to try and block out microaggressions on campus it is actually teaching students to think in distorted ways. As a result, students are learning lessons that are bad for themselves and their mental health. However, Lukianoff and Haidt believe that cognitive behavioral therapy is the next big thing to teach good

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

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.

“Free Inquiry? Not on Campus” by John Leo is an important essay that shows exactly how important it is to protect people's political views and opinions. In Leo's essay, he elaborates how times have changed and how we live in more of a liberal left-wing society and because of this everyone has to be more politically correct. Leo talks about the social change universities and colleges on how they used to promote free speech, but now are more like the speech police telling us what's opinions you should have on any given subject and any other opinion is considered wrong. Leo gives an example of this and writes “in October 2007, for instance, a student mob stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down speeches by two members of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration group.The students shouted they have no right to

Former president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, in his essay, “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” published in the Boston Globe, addresses the topic of protection and regulation of freedom of expression on college campuses and argues that rather than prohibiting the expression of offensive speech, it would be better to ignore it. He fails to support his claim by dismissing the emotional discomfort that people might find themselves in, in response to someone’s offensive expressions, and by not being a credible source of information on the topic, but he successfully appeals to the reader by offering logical reasons as to why

If these students were practicing the art, they would not fall prey to emotional reasoning, or believing their emotions toward subjects trumps all logic. Instead, students are being coddled and treated as though their negative feelings toward something justifies changes and protection. On page seven of the article, Lukianoff and Haidt pondered, “What are we doing to our students if we encourage them to develop extra-thin skin just before they leave the cocoon of adult protection?” We are honestly preparing them to think their emotions and complaints will cause real life struggles and offenses to disappear, but this is not true. There are going to be times in everyone’s lives where they feel uncomfortable in a situation, and nothing will be done about it. College students need to be taught to deal with their emotions and accept discomfort by using critical-thinking skills learned through cognitive behavioral therapy.

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

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom

Free speech on college campuses has been a widely debated topic in recent years. Because of this, the opinions held on this subject vary. In the editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses”, the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune defends the idea of education and free speech. The Editorial Board states that students today are not receiving as useful of an education because of the barriers put on free speech. In addition, they argue that in not allowing students to feel uncomfortable, they are not receiving a true education. [A little more summary here would be helpful—how does the author support these claims?] The editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses,” introduces a valid logical argument on education through describing instances in which students experience uncomfortable learning situations, and the ways in which they were handled. [Hannah, your reasons here are about content, not about rhetoric—what rhetorical reasons is the argument strong?]

Some of the most concerning effects of trigger warnings pertain to the well-being of students and the academic freedom of professors. In “The Coddling of the American Mind” from The Atlantic, the authors describe how trigger warnings may affect students’ mental health saying, “A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically” (Lukianoff and Haidt). The implementation of trigger warnings has been seen as a call for censorship in the name of sensitivity. This suggestion of a change in curriculum is alarming college faculty members across the nation. Professors are fearful of offending students and damaging their reputations. In “Survey

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).

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

The concern for the well-being of all students in a school campus has always been one of the biggest responsibility for a district. As time passes on new experiences occur to many students, some that may traumatize them leaving them vulnerable to subjects which many people may be unaware of. In “The Coddling of the American Mind” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, trigger warnings and microaggression was one of the topics to focus on for the emotional well-being of American students. Safe space was also brought up in the article. Nowadays many policies have been enforced to help prevent discomfort for all students in a district. It has even led to prevention of word usage in classroom lectures as well to nation quotes such as “America is the land of opportunity.” These changes are being made to protect students from all undesired anxious reactions which may be seen in school. In this essay, I will be talking on the subject of students do need to be protected from such vile subjects but there must also be a limit to it.