Political correctness is a term that is making its way into
every sentence of every newscaster covering political debates or interviews. Political
correctness has become a hot topic issue as the 2016 elections are a fiery mess
of mudslinging and bullying. Especially with regards to Donald Trump. The
article The Coddling of the American Mind
seeks to highlight how American colleges and students are becoming too
oversensitive. The article explains why this oversensitive political
correctness has made its way onto college campuses and demonstrates what it is
doing to the students at these colleges and universities. In a more satirical
and humorous demonstration of the “oversensitiveness” and absurdness of political
correctness is the show on Hulu called Triumph,
the Insult Comic Dog. The show points out some of the flaws and issues with
political correctness. The common theme between the article and show is that
political correctness has, by definition, gone to an extreme and in order to
protect students “trigger warnings” have been developed. Which basically is the
same thing as a safe word people create when they’re having sex.
“Trigger warnings” are warnings that professors give their
students when they are covering material that is provocative and may cause
emotional duress to students who may have experienced something traumatic in
their past. Essentially these “trigger warnings” effectively act as a censor to
anything that may be controversial or provocative, and limits the extent and
where the conversation of the topic will go. This greatly diminishes the value
of the conversation and does not challenge students, nor prepare them for the “real
world”. To continue with the “real world” idea, students will not be prepared
for it with all of the censoring happening in classrooms. The world is a
controversial place, and trying to create a little bubble of protection against
the big, mean, nasty world will get students no where in life. I argue, that
this over coddling will inevitably make students so “weak” … sorry “sensitive”,
that when they enter the real world and are faced with their first
controversial situation they will implode and have a mental break down, as they
realize the rules that the big boys play by in the real world are mean and
nasty, and not all lovey dovey.
Political correctness
is also, in my opinion, unconstitutional as it acts as a form of censorship on free
speech. However, all forms of “political correctness” should not be completely abolished.
We should still have political correctness, but in moderation. We can’t have
people running around schools yelling “Heil Hitler!”, but we shouldn’t be
oversensitive so that when people make a joke about how "It looks like you guys are being slowly suffocated by these questions" gets professors or students suspended. Essentially what needs to happen is that people need to loosen up and let people experience controversy and the real world and finally "man/woman up"!
I disagree with your argument that college is the time to be exposed to the malicious attacks soon to be heard in our "big, mean, nasty world." Our speaker on Thursday made an interesting argument that by grouping together "trigger warnings" with the hyperbolic "oversensitiveness" to anything controversial, you are delegitimizing many traumatic and life changing events that students have faced. In a sense, you are forcing students into a role of believing that they should not question the status quo or reach out for help about serious issues, for fear of being mocked and labeled as "oversensitive." I would be interested to hear what you thought of our speaker's explanation of the biological and permanent effects of traumatic events and whether or not you would now allow a level of censorship in the classroom to accommodate the valid and more serious experiences students face due to the newfound evidence.
ReplyDeleteEven if your argument changed to allow for the important distinction between trigger warnings (as biologically-proven and deserving of consideration) and microaggressions (which are far more mild and unaware of their effects on students), I will continue to argue the censorship of both categories. I think by allowing microaggressions and mild discriminations in an academic setting, you are indirectly causing the mean, nasty world that you consider natural and inevitable. Your argument centers around preparing students for such a world where attacks are commonplace, but if we began to change the interpersonal dynamic at an earlier time, such as in colleges, I think we could perpetuate this care and consideration for one another in what you call the "real" world.
By allowing microaggressions to be OK in classrooms, you are allowing discriminations to perpetuate outside of the classroom. To connect this topic with our discussions of liberalism, I think some of our readers such as John Dewey would argue that each individual in our society has a personal duty to not only abstain from offending minority groups, but also to actively keep others from exhibiting such a form of intolerance. Dewey might find that the reason our culture has become so malicious and corrupt is because we treat democracy as an inevitable "default" of sorts and believe that the maintenance of democracy lies in the hands of politicians rather than each individual.
Dewey might also agree that the steps being taken to cut out microaggressions and offensive opinions from college campuses might serve to also rectify the "real world" malice: he states that democracy is furthered by observational modeling in the community. Our culture can be changed by this movement, as individuals will begin to adopt a more tolerant and considerate outlook when surrounded by such democratic spirit and practice, as Dewey concludes. Each student and teacher alike should therefore strive to practice this democratic tolerance when in controversial disagreements, as a hallmark of our nations values.
-Caroline Besley
Reading this blog post after our class discussion about liberal arts education allowed me to think about it in that light. Dr. Simmons discussed the viewpoint that it is okay for college to be a "bubble" and not be restrained by the logic of the real world as long as students are gaining the knowledge and tools to apply that knowledge after they graduate. However, your post brings up an interesting point. If we restrict class discussions by introducing trigger warnings and censorship, are we preventing students to gain some of this necessary knowledge that they will need in the real world? I think the key is to find some sort of balance that promotes free discussion and controversial topics, but also warn students about issues that could cause severe emotional distress. Unfortunately, in many situations the distinction between an offensive topic and an emotionally disturbing one is not recognized. When it can be, I think that is when a university will be more successful.
ReplyDelete-Stephanie Betts