Week of Sept 6th

We all read the article; I am going to jump right in here….
College/university, who makes up this population? Especially in the United States other than its own citizens: people from all over the world for one, immigrants. This can then be further broken down into people of varying socioeconomic status, environmental factors, medical conditions, family history, life experiences, gender, sex, race, etc. etc. With all these varying factors, it is foolish to think that 500 people arranged in one classroom will reciprocate, interact, and intake information the same way. While some sectors of the population may do this easier than others, it is important to acknowledge the subjectivity of relevant issues and interpretation of “education” that can be objectively magnified or simplified across this wide range of college students.

Like the article stated itself, cognitive behavior therapy is one of its kinds, the most effective breakthrough, “ it teaches thinking skills that people can continue to use”. My point here is, instead of being more conservative, or exploiting college students to being overly “sensitive” and jumping to eliminating the exposed factor all together; it may be worthwhile to actually solve the problem at its root. Programs are generally 4 years in length, use CBT as a technique to have mandatory first and second year classes to help shape students into becoming less, “ distorted […] and see the world more accurately”.

For starters, it may be helpful that all incoming college students have to read this particular article, eh! Like it has been said, we often see things for what we are rather than what it is. Firing Dr. Doolittle for a subjectively interpreted “microaggregation” is not going to stop ‘Tom Dick or Harry’ from feeling this way again in a couple months or years down the road in a similar classroom setting. Let the American mind fall off a two-wheeler multiple times rather than letting them graze through on all fours; they wouldn’t know what to do if one of the wheels accidently came off.

I don’t believe that it’s about sensitivity; it’s about the lack of communication, interpretation, and association at a larger scale. There is a lot worse out there, outside of the classroom setting, which is expressed via, Facebook, twitter, and whatever else. The classroom is almost the perfect setting to bring issues to surface and provoke discussion- this needs to made more apparent beforehand maybe…

These college students are the future generations of America. More often than not, it is not what you said; it is how you said it. And lastly, my favorite part of the article: “When people improve their mental hygiene in this way—when they free themselves from the repetitive irrational thoughts that had previously filled so much of their consciousness—they become less depressed, anxious, and angry.” – Perhaps this is the modern day struggle.

I found this article extremely interesting and a very enjoyable read. My favorite point was, “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?” This question poses a very observable pattern amongst this generation, that we learning to become too sensitive for our own good. This ‘good’ encompasses not only social norms and what is deemed politically correct, but it has now extended into institutions of higher learning and appears to be rapidly compromising our education. The encouragement to develop extra-thin skin is further widening the gap between reality and expectations of people of this generation. The world is a cold, tough place and cocooning yourself into non-violent, non-judgmental, super safe thoughts and ideas only creates a false sense of security and creates under developed individuals. This generation has become filled with individuals with an enormous sense of entitlement who possess inflated versions of reality and yet no one wants to see the world for what it really is. Instead we pride ourselves as being political correct to an unnecessary degree and advocate for vindictive protectiveness. The harsh and cruel reality of life should be faced head on, and while it is important to remain consideration and sensitive among a nation home to people from all parts of the world, it is still important to instill teachings and facts of what is real and not what is safe.

This article shed some light on the changes that have been made on University and College campuses. It seems that now students are only being taught subjects that cannot be seen offensive, or cause potential distress for other students. According to the article, students have not been exposed to classic novels such as Chinua Achbe’s Things Fall Apart because of racial violence, nor F.Scott Fitxgerald’s The Great Gatsby because of the misogyny and physical abuse. College is supposed to be a place where students expand their way of thinking, and hear viewpoints that are different from their own. To understand the past, students must read books that were written in the past. They must learn from and understand the past. When a subject makes a person feel uncomfortable, there is a reason for it. It is up to that person to further explore the reason behind the uncomfortable feeling.

As an African American there are many parts of history that I do not agree with. I do not agree with slavery. Just because I do not agree with slavery, should I be exempt from all history classes? Every history class that I took talked about slavery. To be excused from all history classes growing up is ridiculous. This is the avoidance tactic that is being presented to college students.

The article mentioned that there has been an increase in the number of students who are now reported to have anxiety. I agree that the reason is because students are now being told that any subject that can be potentially offensive is wrong and punishable. Students now have to question every word before it is said. When schools did not censor students to this degree, they were exposed to different ways of thinking. They were able to make a judgment on what they thought was wrong rather than being told by an authoritative figure what is wrong. The classroom used to be a type of habituation therapy, exposing the students to new idea and thoughts. The “old” teaching allows for there to be a decrease in the number of topics that make students uncomfortable because the subjects are not considered taboo.

There has definitely been a shift in the way of thinking and the resurgence of "political correctness" in our society today. In fact, society is pressuring it's individuals to be so politically correct that people are almost being silenced entirely in fear of saying something that may slightly be offensive to others. Critical thinking in this way is being affected because we can no longer delve into deep, thought stimulating conversations and discussions because we are constantly on edge to see how others may react. Obviously living in such an environment will cause anyone to be anxious, leading to the increased cases of anxiety today. Students don't know how to act or are scared to state their beliefs and are constantly battling their own mind to figure out "what is the best and most sugar-coated, diplomatic way I could say this." I agree that we need to teach students how to think and not what to think, otherwise we're just hurting ourselves in the end. Trying to protect students in the classroom by avoiding discussions or shutting down uncomfortable arguments is coddling them and definitely doing more harm than good because when faced in the real world, how will they react to such things without an institution protecting them.

College campuses have always been a melting pot of so many different beliefs rallying numerous marches, protests, etc., against one thing or another. So the fact that this article stems from college students is not surprising. For many students this is their first time without a parental figure present. Therefore they seek to express themselves in ways they never could before and just like young children they are testing how far they are actually able to go. Essentially, this article seems to be describing a power struggle between the education system and the students themselves. The students are trying to project onto the campuses their own ideal world while the the professors are trying to prepare them for what reality actually is.



Of all the topics discussed, trigger warnings I believe are a good addition to classrooms because students can have to ability to plan out how their days will go when trying to learn and tackle such emotional topics. But eliminating entirely relevant topics like rape law or the use of the word "violate" deprives students of real world application of important educational topics. Many college campuses offer mental health well being services to students. This is usually the time in a person's life when he/she is first independent therefore he/she should be an advocate for themselves and take advantage of these services. The most effective being cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). It can help a patient sort out their beliefs and behaviors and recognize what is helpful & what is not. CBT can also teach patients coping mechanisms like specific breathing exercises or implement another commonly used therapy known as exposure therapy. Colleges can encourage students participation with these resources by setting up booths in college fairs, offering free food to participants, post on the school's website or have professors mention it in class.



Outspoken, well read and demanding college students I believe will always be an issue for every university because they are handling newly independent citizens who do not know where to channel all their newly freed energy. While the students' thoughts, opinions and beliefs are of utmost importance, I believe the educators have to stand firm in their own beliefs that their education will offer them real world applicable knowledge and experience and any opposition should be heard as long as it does not compromise the quality of education each current and future student would receive. Specifically, there was an instance mentioned in the article where one student was reading a book titled Notre Dame vs. the Klan. Another student was offended by it's cover and subsequently that student, just reading, was found guilty by the school's affirmative action team. This use of "emotional reasoning" makes anything a possible target. There seems to be no rules and regulations defining instances where in it can be used. Therefore, I propose if schools are to regularly use "emotional reasoning" as evidence then rules and regulations must be setup that oversee its use so people do not abuse it. For example, those students seeking to use "emotional reasoning" against another student should go through a routine mental health check up by the school's psychiatrist/psychologist. This could be a way of making the "emotional reasoning" more objective and also more importantly it is a way to determine if the students' use of "emotional reasoning" is in fact a sign of a not yet diagnosed mental illness.  In conclusion the basis of those rules and regulations should represent sensitivity towards their students without compromising their educational goals.  

This article just made me realize how true it is when I went thru my university education. It is very hard to express what you feel in terms of overly "sugar coated" manner. I feel like sometimes it's good to be honest and express the feelings you have but of course in a manner that you don't hurt someone else's feelings but in stead, in a way where you can portray what you want to say, so basically the truth in a simpler form. Obviously if you have to live in such kind of environment, it is going to make the person more anxious and the level of stress, anxiety, and psychological issues will increase. When I was doing my undergrad I was always scared of expressing what I felt whenever we had a class discussion so I never raised my hand to speak up. The reason for that is because I was honestly scared of hurting or not typically "sugar coating" my sentence structures. I just wished that whenever they have a class discussion the professor should not avoid certain topics which students will never learn about anywhere outside the school. So basically, they are doing more harm than protecting students itself.