In Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt's article "The Coddling of the American Mind," the main argument is that America is harming its developing minds by restricting content covered in university settings. I believe this argument is summarized well by the quote, "What are we doing to our students if we encourage them to develop an extra-thin skin just before they leave the cocoon of adult protection?" (Lukianoff). On the one hand, I agree with Lukianoff and Haidt's point that censoring what students learn is extremely detrimental to development of critical thinking. On the other hand, I do think that certain language or content can be hurtful to groups of people, and while people shouldn't necessarily be punished for it, others should speak up in that kind of situation (Graff 2).
I agree that exposure to different viewpoints can greatly expand one's knowledge and critical thinking skills because my experience in high school confirms it (Graff 57). At my high school, there were a variety of viewpoints in my classes, and because people didn't always agree with me, they brought new perspectives to the table and challenged me to support my beliefs in more complex ways. I agree that "helping people with anxiety disorders avoid the things they fear is misguided," and it can also apply to almost everyone in regards to uncomfortable situations (Lukianoff). Debates with others about sensitive topics can be difficult and nerve-wracking at first, but once it becomes a more common occurrence, it gets easier and helps people improve their arguments and their overall knowledge.
Though I concede that freedom of speech and exposure to a variety of viewpoints is important, I still insist that some language is not appropriate, such as sexist or racist comments, which contribute nothing positive to a conversation (Graff 60). For example, if someone were to say to someone of Asian heritage "'Aren't you supposed to be good at math?'" in a way that's referring to their race, and isn't between people who know that no offense is meant, I would consider it unacceptable and more than a "microaggression" (Lukianoff).
Despite this, I still believe that speech in an academic setting should not be censored. Some trigger warnings are acceptable, such as when watching a particularly violent film that may be sickening to some students. However, I agree with Lukianoff and Haidt that "It's hard to imagine how novels illustrating classism and privilege could provoke or reactivate the kind of terror that is typically implicated in PTSD" (Lukianoff). Censorship should not be a common theme in classrooms, as it critically builds the mind, but common sense seems to dictate that language that has no purpose but to hurt others that isn't used in class material is inappropriate and can further perpetuate feelings of hostility among people (Graff 22).
Lukianoff, Greg, and Jonathan Haidt. "The Coddling of the American Mind." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, Sept. 2015. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.
Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say / I Say. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2015. Print.
I liked how you addressed the idea of "microagressions" from the article. I liked the fact that you pointed out how freedom of speech is important, but that some comments may be completely inappropriate and derogatory and they shouldn't be simply deemed as "microagressions".
ReplyDeleteI like how you used a couple of the templates to start off paragraphs. By doing that, it felt as if the paragraphs each addressed a different point in the article. I also agree with your point how speech in schools should not be censored.
ReplyDeleteYour organization was great. The way you talked about each quote was very interesting and different
ReplyDelete