Monday, March 23, 2015

Hiding from scary ideas: College students now "more puerile than their predecessors"

From an essay by Judith Shulevitz in the NY Times (In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas):

...I’m old enough to remember a time when college students objected to providing a platform to certain speakers because they were deemed politically unacceptable. Now students worry whether acts of speech or pieces of writing may put them in emotional peril. Two weeks ago, students at Northwestern University marched to protest an article by Laura Kipnis, a professor in the university’s School of Communication. Professor Kipnis had criticized — O.K., ridiculed — what she called the sexual paranoia pervading campus life. The protesters carried mattresses and demanded that the administration condemn the essay. One student complained that Professor Kipnis was “erasing the very traumatic experience” of victims who spoke out. An organizer of the demonstration said, “we need to be setting aside spaces to talk” about “victim-blaming.” 

Last Wednesday, Northwestern’s president, Morton O. Schapiro, wrote an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal affirming his commitment to academic freedom. But plenty of others at universities are willing to dignify students’ fears, citing threats to their stability as reasons to cancel debates, dis-invite commencement speakers and apologize for so-called mistakes.

...while keeping college-level discussions “safe” may feel good to the hypersensitive, it’s bad for them and for everyone else. People ought to go to college to sharpen their wits and broaden their field of vision. Shield them from unfamiliar ideas, and they’ll never learn the discipline of seeing the world as other people see it. They’ll be unprepared for the social and intellectual headwinds that will hit them as soon as they step off the campuses whose climates they have so carefully controlled. What will they do when they hear opinions they’ve learned to shrink from? If they want to change the world, how will they learn to persuade people to join them?

Only a few of the students want stronger anti-hate-speech codes. Mostly they ask for things like mandatory training sessions and stricter enforcement of existing rules. Still, it’s disconcerting to see students clamor for a kind of intrusive supervision that would have outraged students a few generations ago. But those were hardier souls. Now students’ needs are anticipated by a small army of service professionals — mental health counselors, student-life deans and the like. This new bureaucracy may be exacerbating students’ “self-infantilization,” as Judith Shapiro, the former president of Barnard College, suggested in an essay for Inside Higher Ed.

But why are students so eager to self-infantilize? Their parents should probably share the blame. Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, wrote on Slate last month that although universities cosset students more than they used to, that’s what they have to do, because today’s undergraduates are more puerile than their predecessors. “Perhaps overprogrammed children engineered to the specifications of college admissions offices no longer experience the risks and challenges that breed maturity,” he wrote. But “if college students are children, then they should be protected like children”...

...A few weeks ago, Zineb El Rhazoui, a journalist at Charlie Hebdo, spoke at the University of Chicago, protected by the security guards she has traveled with since supporters of the Islamic State issued death threats against her. During the question-and-answer period, a Muslim student stood up to object to the newspaper’s apparent disrespect for Muslims and to express her dislike of the phrase “I am Charlie.”

Ms. El Rhazoui replied, somewhat irritably, “Being Charlie Hebdo means to die because of a drawing,” and not everyone has the guts to do that (although she didn’t use the word guts). She lives under constant threat, Ms. El Rhazoui said. The student answered that she felt threatened, too.

A few days later, a guest editorialist in the student newspaper took Ms. El Rhazoui to task. She had failed to ensure “that others felt safe enough to express dissenting opinions.” Ms. El Rhazoui’s “relative position of power,” the writer continued, had granted her a “free pass to make condescending attacks on a member of the university.” In a letter to the editor, the president and the vice president of the University of Chicago French Club, which had sponsored the talk, shot back, saying, “El Rhazoui is an immigrant, a woman, Arab, a human-rights activist who has known exile, and a journalist living in very real fear of death. She was invited to speak precisely because her right to do so is, quite literally, under threat.”

You’d be hard-pressed to avoid the conclusion that the student and her defender had burrowed so deep inside their cocoons, were so overcome by their own fragility, that they couldn’t see that it was Ms. El Rhazoui who was in need of a safer space.

Rob's comment: It's not just college students that are increasingly puerile. So is City Hall, the MTA's management, many city progressives, and some local journalists, which they all demonstrated several years ago when Pamela Geller paid for that anti-jihad ad on Muni buses.

Labels: , , , , ,


At 3:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really enjoy your Diary...keep up the good work!

At 6:44 PM, Anonymous Gregski said...

Yo Rob,

You think the moral wimps at Streetsblog, the ones so traumatized by your comments that they barred you from posting, attended some of these schools?

Shame on you for not "making" them feel safer.

At 9:45 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Yes, I feel bad about that, since I've devoted my life to making things safe for those with cognitive disabilities. The scary idea for Streetsblog: That motor vehicles are here to stay and that bikes will always be a minor transportation "mode," even in San Francisco.

At 9:38 AM, Blogger Rkeezy said...

Definitely have noticed people have a very low tolerance for dissenting opinion. And when they do meet it, it is often with brazen rudeness. The number of anonymous posters that come here, leave a snarky comment with no real substantive argument, is really sad. If I posted to Streetsblog basically calling everyone a shitbird, like some folks seem to do here (don't know for sure they are coming from that site, just a wild guess), I would be branded a troll and a person who just wasn't on board with the program. Heavens forbid we get confronted with a differing ideal!

At 10:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I have noticed that uber progressives have difficulty entertaining conflicting viewpoints. I have been summarily dismissed and even had people walk away from me when I try to discuss the "other" side of and issue. Even my friends tell me to piss off if I do this. Conformity and peer pressure are powerful things and I am seeing that in San Francisco there is now very little room for meaningful discourse. You are either "with me or against me". Very sad.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home