Should students be sheltered from potentially harmful words or ideas?

College Life
41

“And UT students are offended by statues of confederate leaders” At least with that I can understand it, no matter how you sugarcoat it, those confederate leaders seceded from the US and fought a war basically to preserve slavery, whether slavery was the primary issue or not, that is why they seceded in the end, it is why they kept on fighting after the other issues were off the table (after the Emancipation Proclamation, the only things the confederacy had to do to rejoint the union was to swear allegiance to the union, and to get rid of slavery). Some people might see Lee and Jackson and so forth as heroes, but that doesn’t change what they were fighting for, it would be like putting a statue of Rommel in front of a synagogue to some people,and for example Forrest created the KKK.

It has gone too far. For many years, the PC label was used by those who thought that bullying and calling people names, whether ethnic groups or gays, was okay, part of life, toughens people up and such (and it doesn’t), the problem is we have gone from trying to stop bullying and legitimate forms of aggression in the form of taunts and slurs, to finding offense in things where no offense was meant or because a topic made someone uncomfortable, and that really is PC. The problem is people forget about intent, or that there are ideas in this world that are uncomfortable if not despicable, but that doesn’t mean you avoid it. I am old enough to remember back in the late 70’s when William Shockley was promoting his BS ideas of racial superiority and so forth, and he had appearances on college campuses that were cancelled because students were outraged, and I was in a minority in that I thought it was wrong, and my answer was let the clown speak, then rip his ideas to shreds, because they were garbage.Uncomfortable ideas need to be out there so they can be argued, debated, and if wrong or vile, put to bed when people realize they are. That doesn’t mean, as conservative legal groups tried to argue a while ago in front of Scotus, that burning a cross on someone’s lawn was free speech and expression of an idea, if a vile one, even Clarence Thomas ripped that one apart, saying that was intimidation (which it was/is), we are talking ideas, and how the hell can you talk about history for example without talking about let’s say the ideology of the Nazis or of those who promoted manifest destiny and basically the genocide of native americans?

We make fun of the Christian Dominionists who want to teach sugar coated history, that the US never did anything wrong, that the US constitution came from God kind of like the 10 commandments, that everything the uS ever did was right, but this is just as bad, this is sugar coating history to leave out uncomfortable things, like just how stupid, cruel and mean human beings can be.

42

@musicprnt Actually, it was completely to preserve slavery. And this brings up an interesting example.

Let’s look at the confederacy as a case study. It is highly ironic that the people defending the confederate flag say that their opposition is being “politically correct”, when it is actually the opposite. The people who support it are unable and/or unwilling to believe that the entire war was fought over slavery, reject that truth, then call on others to reject it as well.

Isn’t that the issue that we’re talking about? And this is far older than any other examples that previous posters have mentioned.

43

Every time I see this, I see a very common trend with the arguments that goes a bit like this:

I very much agree that it has gone too far in some places. But, that in no way validates going back much father than needed. Usually, this is where it turns into a whole “all this PC is stopping my discriminatory or insensitive comments” and not actually focusing on the issue, which is proper use of particular words and phrases.

I am very much in line with post #12 by @silmaril, but what makes me cringe is @moscott 's extrapolation. In this case, the extra item tagged onto the argument is an entire issue of how we socialize gender and perpetuate gender stereotypes. That Target example is very good for society IMO. It’s about gender equality down the road, getting more girls involved in science and technology and computer science and the like.

But that example is not the point. The point is that this doesn’t really fit into the current issue: improper censorship and censorship getting in the way by being too extreme. That is the point I think where clear agreement and change should and could happen. But this issue immediately gets mixed into other, non related issues regarding the sensitivity specifics themselves, which is very much a separate argument. One is what is needed, the other is what is wanted. Those B’s, C’s, and D’s are not in the way of society or learning usually. They are there for legitimate reasons. See catcalling, rape jokes, the derogatory use of the word gay (remember when that was rampant and then we actually did something about it without harming anything?), and gender socialization (since it is a B/C/D that was brought up here).

So basically, I fully agree with the specific issue, but what makes this controversial is the slew of things that get tied to it.

44

^^^Talk about an extrapolation…who knew all along all we had to do to get more girls in STEM and CS was to take down the boys and girls signs at Target! Give me a break.

45

@moscott it may not be the overarching solution, but many interests are cultivated and guided by what we are allowed to interact with as children. Stuff like toy cars, planes, Legos, science sets are “toys for boys”, while in the girls sections it’s a bunch of barbies and domestic things like tea sets and dollhouses… do you see how these gender stereotypes might discourage or inhibit girls from exploring STEM related interests from a very young age (or boys from exploring interests outside of STEM)? Toys are toys are toys - there’s no logical reason why we need to attach gender stereotypes to them.

Returning to PC argument, I pretty much agree with a lot of what @musicprnt and @PengsPhils said on this topic. A lot of people are going overboard with the idea of PC to the point that it seems to be like censorship, but at the same time a lot of people are completely disregarding the idea of PC in order to continue their ignorant or (oftentimes) bigoted views.

46

“And UT students are offended by statues glorifying traitors in armed rebellion against the United States.”

There, I fixed that for you.

47

I am trying to figure out what snake people have to do with the topic.

48

Sanitizing education?
Does the name Orwell strike any bells?

Hopefully this disappears like the anti-APUSH movement.

49

A word harmful to me might not be harmful to you.

Like, the words “under God” are harmful to atheists in the Pledge of Allegiance.

And singing “Happy Birthday” to a student who was Jehovah’s Witness in my grade school was not allowed (she was not allowed to celebrate birthdays).

No matter what “baggage” you have due to personal choices or life experiences, it gets pretty easy to find something that will offend someone. For example, because of my upbringing in an immigrant community, I find it offensive for people to speak anything other than English when in public. That tags me as racist or a bigot by some. But it is based on how I grew up and what was impressed upon me - you only speak your own language when you are with a group of your own people, at a party or a wedding or family gathering. You don’t speak to your dad in your language when you are at your school. Or with your mom in your language when you are at the grocery store.

De-offensive-izing the world is impossible. And the things that are REALLY offensive get ignored for the sake of wasting time addressing our own political correctness (read about ISIS and Yazidi girls and women in the NYT). Let’s spend money on saving victims of sex trafficking instead of not saying the “r-word” for fear of triggering someone’s PTSD.

50

The problem (well, one of the problems) with this whole discussion is that people seem to immediately grab on to the extremes from both sides as absolutely emblematic of what those on the other side are proposing.

Important fact: They’re not.

That is all. Carry on.

51

I just assumed it was in the same bucket with “purple penguins”, which, I have to note, immediately made me think of a time and place when being called a “pink squirrel” was preparatory to getting a beating.

So, yes, it’s offensive, too.

52

When they came for the snake people I said nothing, and then…

53

Lol!

54

Head injuries are very serious, and there’s quite literally zero reason to NOT wear a helmet when possible.

Billy Mays got killed from hitting his head on a plane, it is entirely feasible for a kid to suffer a traumatic head injury on a tricycle.

55

^^ That. I mean, I get that wearing a bike helmet on a tricycle makes for a nice little stand-in for coddled and cocooned kids, but the image falls apart under any sort of close examination—protecting (even if arguably overprotecting) against a small but real chance of physical injury is qualitatively very, very different from protecting against emotional turmoil (as opposed to emotional injury).

ETA: Though a quick note to say that Billy Mays dying from hitting his head is an urban legend, stemming from initial speculation about his death. He actually died of a heart attack.

56

@Hunt Oops lol. I meant millennials, not snake people. But for the very reason I often dislike the use of the term, I have a browser extension that changes “millennials” to “snake people” so I can get some comedy out of it. I saved it as a draft and when I came back, boom, the actual text was edited as a result.

57

No, students shouldn’t be sheltered!
Throughout history, there have always been racist, sexist, and homophobic people. Obviously, students should know what has happened in the past.

Unfortunately, these people will most likely always exist. I understand that these things are wrong, and that everyone should feel accepted. But, should others feel “afraid” of offending someone of a different race or sexuality, when saying something general? This seems as if it would make these issues worse…

58

[QUOTE=""]

Should students be sheltered from potentially harmful words or ideas?

[/QUOTE]

Please no. Doing so would be another chapter in the helicopter protecting saga and would be a big disservice to them.

Plus college is the place where they need to learn about the realities of the world, so they can use their idealism to revolt, protest, and change the world.

59

If only a few colleges acquiesced to this level of political correctness, it would be a very useful market signal–college A panders to fragile children, so other rational students, and future employers, can avoid these misfit kids.

The real tragedy is if this becomes a national movement across all colleges. Perhaps there can be an organization with published membership that all these fragile students are encouraged to join. Unfortunately rational students will still be subject to them in the same college, but at least employers will know who is not cut out for the real world. Maybe we can name it PCI for Politically Correct Intelligentsia (or Idiots, your choice).

As you might have guessed, political correctness is not my thing.

60

CENSORSHIP is bad in any shape or form. Even the very notion that law school students, and they’re not children anymore, can’t hear the word rape because it offends is silly nonsense. Rape happens and it won’t go away until we, society/parents/delicate children/students, learn to address the issue like honest adults.