Coddling America's Minds

            In Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s article, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” they examine the educational environment created by imposing emotional restrictions on college students.  There has been a trend toward holding students back from any comments deemed hurtful.  Lukianoff and Haidt describe the movement as “undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense” (Lukianoff).  College campuses, previously identified as bastions of liberal thinking, become more close-minded with these new regulations.  For example, by exaggerating microaggressions and forcing teachers to issue trigger warnings, college administrators in effect coddle adult students when they should be encouraging new experiences and encounters on their campuses (Graff 136).  Lukianhoff and Haidt’s observations are important to modern society because they force the population of students and teachers participating in the college education system to reevaluate their approaches to espousing and receiving higher knowledge.  I agree that the college environment is digressing into an era of limiting communication and development of students due to senseless policies, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people still believe students should be eased into the challenges of the real world throughout their college experience (Graff 64).

            College, previously a place of free expression and exchange of ideas, is slowly discouraging students to hold their tongues and not immerse themselves in conversations that could help them learn about the real world.  While they rarely admit as much, supporters of this recent trend often take for granted that students’ development in college is strongly linked to their interactions with numerous other people (Graff 25).  This movement focuses on ensuring the safety of students’ psychological health.  Lukianoff and Haidt argue that the trend “presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche” and tries to “turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable” (Lukianhoff).  Students are (for the most part) eighteen years old when they enter college.  They are permitted to vote, and society marks them as adults.  Therefore, they should be treated like adults.  More importantly, they should want to be treated like adults.  It seems senseless that so many limitations on everyday interactions have been placed on students.  When adults offend others or hear something that offends them, they should be forced to deal with the repercussions or personal damages on their own. 

            This obvious trend is important to take note of in modern society as our colleges educate the next generation of active thinkers.  Recent studies like those presented by Lukianoff and Haidt shed new light on the societal significance of this movement, which previous media journalists had not addressed (Graff 95).  The authors of this article pose an important question: “What exactly are students learning when they spend four years or more in a community that polices unintentional slights, places warning labels on works of classic literature, and…conveys the sense that words can be forms of violence?” (Lukainoff).  Colleges are considered to be the highest form of education in America; it seems unreasonable that those institutions actually inhibit development.  Taking note of these developments is necessary if we want to change anything about how we act.  College should prepare students for a professional career, but Lukianoff and Haidt note that “[vindictive protectiveness] prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong” (Lukianoff).  Even more worrisome are the immediate effects of such limitations.  For instance, the authors write, “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” (Lukianoff).  This quotation indicates the very real dangers of teaching students to think within a closed sphere of emotional protection.  The trend of colleges and universities toward protecting students from themselves is a detrimental decision to the individuals involved and the evolving world that demands hyperactive and productive thinkers.  The closed-minded movement teaches students to think the wrong way, which sets them up for failure within their respective academic field.  Additionally, the limiting nature of the students downplays everything that the collegiate education system strives to represent.  Overall, as a society, we need to reevaluate the values we want in our education system.  While it will take time and effort to push back against this movement, it will create a safer environment and better development for students in the long run.

Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say / I Say. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2015. Print.

Lukianoff, Greg, and Jonathan Haidt. "The Coddling of the American Mind." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 10 Aug. 2015. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.