Censorship or Incensed College Students?

"The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness." (The Atlantic)

            Over the past few years, colleges across the United States have faced a new and growing problem: whether or not to censor potentially troubling material from their campuses. On its surface, the issue seems fairly one-dimensional; in order to protect students from mental harm and discrimination, many colleges feel the need to prevent a plethora of wrongdoings from hate speech to microaggressions to the discussion of triggering or controversial topics. Regardless of intentions, the actions taken by administration are often misguided and fail to serve the students that they appear desperate to protect. Students, additionally, are demanding protection from disagreeable topics and opinions on a scale unseen in years past. As college students insist on creating “safe spaces,” generational values become mores or taboos within the protected subculture of college. Attacking fellow students or faculty who present differing opinions is justified on the premise of helping those who may suffer from the expressions of others. How much does censorship help, though?

            As Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explain in The Coddling of the American Mind, the impact of “protecting” students from uncomfortable ideas may not benefit students, and may in some ways, this “new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.” Instead of learning how to deal with and learn from individuals with differing viewpoints, students learn that they should simply avoid those whose ideologies they dislike. The intent in mandating trigger warnings or eliminating certain topics from the curriculum/discussion is often to protect those who have experienced trauma and may be upset when those topics are brought up, but the outcome is more harmful than constructive. Not only are students denied the chance to heal in a relatively safe environment, but the students are taught that certain topics are so harmful that they should not be discussed at all. Topics like racism and sexual violence get neglected for the supposed safety of the students, leaving students without ways to discuss important issues. Upon graduation, students also face the added stress of not having adequate skills to cope with the lack of a safe zone outside of college. Even if students manage to have a discomfort-free college experience, it would be unrealistic to expect the remainder of their lives would be the same. The Onion published a satirical article on the new demand for safe spaces and limiting uncomfortable new ideas. Although the article is clearly overblown, it strikes a very real nerve. Students learn that they do not need to deal with the opinions of others, simply seal themselves up in an idealized “safe space” that does not exist in the world outside of college.   

"Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten." (ACLU)

            Students may face troubling realities when they exit the bubble of the American college subculture, but there is another threat to individuals who were not privileged enough to attend college. Obtaining a college degree comes with a level of privilege (and often comes from a place of privilege as well in order for students to afford college in the first place); however, those who do not attend college are not coddled in the same way, and many will have to face some form of the many subjects that are becoming increasingly taboo on college campuses. Without being able to communicate about issues such as domestic violence or racial inequality, college students are further placed in a bubble that prevents progress or discussion across strata and subcultures.  

            The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) add support for a lack of censorship on college campuses. In order to encourage growth and development of new ideas, college students must be forced to face opinions different from their own. These differing opinions may be upsetting, hateful, or entirely wrong, but a one-minded culture inhibits progress. As seen in the increasingly polarized U.S. government, individuals who refuse to see viewpoints other than their own cannot function to their full potential. The ACLU notes that “verbal purity is not social change,” and that mistaking censorship for progress is in itself detrimental to students and colleges alike. 

Sources:

• http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
• https://www.thefire.org/campus-rights/
• https://www.aclu.org/hate-speech-campus
• http://www.theonion.com/article/parents-dedicate-new-college-safe-space-honor-daug-50851 (please note that The Onion is satirical if you're just looking at the sources and not the blog post itself!)
• http://semipartisansam.com/2015/10/30/fighting-safe-space-culture-college-censorship-the-best-weapon-is-ridicule/ (image)