University Students are Afraid of Everything(jpminda.wordpress.com)
jpminda.wordpress.com
University Students are Afraid of Everything
https://jpminda.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/university-students-are-afraid-of-everything/
45 comments
> Are there actually any numbers for this supposed infantilization? It seems to me that the number of people complaining about unis being not PC enough is relatively equal to the number of people complaining about the first group.
Isn't this the same response we hear every time someone else speaks out about this? "This is just the work of a few bad eggs. If this was a widespread problem, why aren't we hearing about more of it?" Which, yeah, the first few times people have made this complaint, I agreed with. But it has started to ring hollow.
> Sometimes very small, very loud groups can be perceived by outsiders
I don't think the author here is an outsider—they're a professor at a university where this is happening.
Isn't this the same response we hear every time someone else speaks out about this? "This is just the work of a few bad eggs. If this was a widespread problem, why aren't we hearing about more of it?" Which, yeah, the first few times people have made this complaint, I agreed with. But it has started to ring hollow.
> Sometimes very small, very loud groups can be perceived by outsiders
I don't think the author here is an outsider—they're a professor at a university where this is happening.
I can see your first point, but I still have to see yet any quantification (a shift in questionnaire answers towards more "PC" over the decades, for example), until then I remain unconvinced.
Most cases in the author's article have to do with other universities - about the author's university, he complains about "counselors" (again, I think that's a financial incentive for the university - "customer support", happy customers study longer therefore pay more, special customers for groups who normally don't study -> more students from that group -> more money), and people in pajamas, which isn't really a problem that I can understand.
Now that I've re-read it, it's a bit weird that a psychologist writes a sentence like this:
> It seems that Harvard students, for whom the average grade is A- need more help.
If you're expected to have an average of A- by your peers, teachers and professors of other universities then I'd expect the pressure to be enormous, of course you'll see more problems with mental health!
>I must ensure that every every disability is accommodated.
The poor man!
Most cases in the author's article have to do with other universities - about the author's university, he complains about "counselors" (again, I think that's a financial incentive for the university - "customer support", happy customers study longer therefore pay more, special customers for groups who normally don't study -> more students from that group -> more money), and people in pajamas, which isn't really a problem that I can understand.
Now that I've re-read it, it's a bit weird that a psychologist writes a sentence like this:
> It seems that Harvard students, for whom the average grade is A- need more help.
If you're expected to have an average of A- by your peers, teachers and professors of other universities then I'd expect the pressure to be enormous, of course you'll see more problems with mental health!
>I must ensure that every every disability is accommodated.
The poor man!
>I must ensure that every every disability is accommodated.
>> The poor man!
Did you not read the next sentence? The point was that most of the "disabilities" are bunk:
> Most disabilities that I am asked to accommodate seem to be unspecified and are remedied by providing the students with a separate, quiet location and an extra 30 minutes to take an exam.
>> The poor man!
Did you not read the next sentence? The point was that most of the "disabilities" are bunk:
> Most disabilities that I am asked to accommodate seem to be unspecified and are remedied by providing the students with a separate, quiet location and an extra 30 minutes to take an exam.
He doesn't prove that they are bunk - there are just many disabilities out there where a separate room is helpful. (edit: in fact, an extra room + bit of extra time is the only available accommodation for disabled that unis tend to give out, so of course that's the "remedy")
For example, someone with a spine injury with a only partially functioning bladder may need to urinate a few times during a long exam. If he/she's not around students, he/she can do that using a bottle and doesn't need to waste any more time wheeling back and forth to the bathroom. (I have a friend in a wheelchair who used to do this during exams). Visually impaired may not be able to write or read on their own so they have someone read them the questions and dictate the answers, which disturbs other students if they'd be in the same room.
AFAIK if you need a different room then the disability has to be documented to the university with a medical letter, but I can't find that requirement at the author's uni page so maybe that uni doesn't.
For example, someone with a spine injury with a only partially functioning bladder may need to urinate a few times during a long exam. If he/she's not around students, he/she can do that using a bottle and doesn't need to waste any more time wheeling back and forth to the bathroom. (I have a friend in a wheelchair who used to do this during exams). Visually impaired may not be able to write or read on their own so they have someone read them the questions and dictate the answers, which disturbs other students if they'd be in the same room.
AFAIK if you need a different room then the disability has to be documented to the university with a medical letter, but I can't find that requirement at the author's uni page so maybe that uni doesn't.
> AFAIK if you need a different room then the disability has to be documented to the university with a medical letter, but I can't find that requirement at the author's uni page so maybe that uni doesn't.
Just to add to this:
I'm a TA and have been a lecturer a few times for courses at my uni. There is a whole registration process that the student and professor must go through. I'd estimate (in my limited experience) it's usually only 1 in 30-50 students who request extra accommodation. I suppose there are some that use it to take advantage. However, there are social implications of having special accommodations that naturally work to off set those who might take advantage these allowances.
Just to add to this:
I'm a TA and have been a lecturer a few times for courses at my uni. There is a whole registration process that the student and professor must go through. I'd estimate (in my limited experience) it's usually only 1 in 30-50 students who request extra accommodation. I suppose there are some that use it to take advantage. However, there are social implications of having special accommodations that naturally work to off set those who might take advantage these allowances.
Some people are bad test takers. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get through college when college is equivalent to what high school used to be (a basic ticket into the workforce). I think it is perfectly valid to need more time and some quiet to be able to complete an exam (this comes from someone who is very good at taking tests, if my past school performance and current job interview performance is any indication)
> Some people are bad test takers.
And some people are bad studiers, and some people are bad workers, and some people have trouble remembering details, and some people have trouble organizing their thoughts clearly. And so on for all sorts of other inabilities. Should they all be able to get through college? If not, what's the distinction? If so, what does it mean to pass through college?
And some people are bad studiers, and some people are bad workers, and some people have trouble remembering details, and some people have trouble organizing their thoughts clearly. And so on for all sorts of other inabilities. Should they all be able to get through college? If not, what's the distinction? If so, what does it mean to pass through college?
It's almost as if the entire purpose of testing is to create a proxy for discrimination based on ability.
What do you mean proxy?
There is a pair of selfish memes here. "PC" is a meme and so is the attack on PC.
For a bunch of reasons it is not feasible for people to talk about or expect any actions about the real problems they face (for instance, the cost of college, all of the ways the 'meritocracy' falls short that aren't connected with race and gender).
(Oddly, for all the talk about race-class-gender, you never hear about class because a lot of history got forgotten in the 1960s. For instance, you hear about anti-semitism, but you don't hear that the Klu Klux Klan was an equal opportunity hate group at the peak of it's influence which hated irish people and italians, as well as blacks and jewish people.)
For a bunch of reasons it is not feasible for people to talk about or expect any actions about the real problems they face (for instance, the cost of college, all of the ways the 'meritocracy' falls short that aren't connected with race and gender).
(Oddly, for all the talk about race-class-gender, you never hear about class because a lot of history got forgotten in the 1960s. For instance, you hear about anti-semitism, but you don't hear that the Klu Klux Klan was an equal opportunity hate group at the peak of it's influence which hated irish people and italians, as well as blacks and jewish people.)
Certainly in my AP US History class (ca. 2003), we had the joys of reading primary source literature from the era in question (twenties) with such slogans as "Kick the Koons, Kikes, and Katholics", so no I wouldn't say it was forgotten
How has it started to ring hollow? The last time we had a similar piece, that Vox article with a prof complaining about "liberal academia scaring him", he wasn't countered with mere notions that he was inflating a non-issue, but actual counter-factuals regarding his exact claims (ie: that discussions of abortion were stifled by "liberals", for example).
I don't think there's any topic that's more "Pro-Skub" vs "Anti-Skub" in the entire internet than "Outrage Culture" vs. "People outraged at Outrage Culture".
I don't think there's any topic that's more "Pro-Skub" vs "Anti-Skub" in the entire internet than "Outrage Culture" vs. "People outraged at Outrage Culture".
>They nap in the library or in the hallway of academic buildings during normal work hours
As a student: "They (working people) nap in their beds or on the couch during crunch-time and study-hours!"
And while I don't do it myself ot that degree, I also wouldn't call lax-personal care during finals laziness. It's just a different social convention which doesn't hurt anyone.
As a student: "They (working people) nap in their beds or on the couch during crunch-time and study-hours!"
And while I don't do it myself ot that degree, I also wouldn't call lax-personal care during finals laziness. It's just a different social convention which doesn't hurt anyone.
>Sometimes very small, very loud groups can be perceived by outsiders to be more influential than they actually are.
In my very personal experience, their volume gives them enough influence to cause trouble, regardless of their size. "Reactionary politics" are a way of life now, thanks to instant global communication.
In my very personal experience, their volume gives them enough influence to cause trouble, regardless of their size. "Reactionary politics" are a way of life now, thanks to instant global communication.
The prof might be groping around a real core issue, but he really picked some unfortunately example. I'm just going to pile on his exam time example really hard.
Ok, you tell a bunch of young adults that what they do over the next 2-4 weeks is super important. They will put effort into something, and the end result is a number, and the higher the number, the better chances they have at getting what they want in life (later). And no one will ever give a shit about what happens over those next few weeks except the number. Well, then you'd actually be a total dummy not to ruthlessly optimize for that number. Dress like shit? Why not. Take adderall? Why not. Sleep whenever you get a chance? Why not.
Maybe university students are a bit too sensitive about things (I actually agree with that statement). But many (most?) university courses are designed such that a student can typically get what they need (a big number at the end of it) by applying the bare minimal amount of effort outside of certain crunch times, and then dropping all other aspects of life during crunch times. If I can get good marks by sacrificing ~4 weeks of my life (and frankly looking like complete shit) per term, while letting me still go out and hang out and have fun and get drunk and laid and high for the rest of the term - hell, why not. It's not like your missing out - everyone else makes the same calculations. You're not going to be able to hang out with your friends during exams anyways.
Ok, you tell a bunch of young adults that what they do over the next 2-4 weeks is super important. They will put effort into something, and the end result is a number, and the higher the number, the better chances they have at getting what they want in life (later). And no one will ever give a shit about what happens over those next few weeks except the number. Well, then you'd actually be a total dummy not to ruthlessly optimize for that number. Dress like shit? Why not. Take adderall? Why not. Sleep whenever you get a chance? Why not.
Maybe university students are a bit too sensitive about things (I actually agree with that statement). But many (most?) university courses are designed such that a student can typically get what they need (a big number at the end of it) by applying the bare minimal amount of effort outside of certain crunch times, and then dropping all other aspects of life during crunch times. If I can get good marks by sacrificing ~4 weeks of my life (and frankly looking like complete shit) per term, while letting me still go out and hang out and have fun and get drunk and laid and high for the rest of the term - hell, why not. It's not like your missing out - everyone else makes the same calculations. You're not going to be able to hang out with your friends during exams anyways.
>Sleeping in a university during "normal work hours" (gasp!) has been normal for decades.
Seriously. There's a reason campuses have lounges and quiet areas, and it's not just so you can sit and do homework during your downtime.
Seriously. There's a reason campuses have lounges and quiet areas, and it's not just so you can sit and do homework during your downtime.
a_bonobo wrote "Maybe it didn't use to be a trauma - but in the time of more and more focus on grades and GPAs, forced student competition, "career days", CV polishing courses, mandatory unpaid internships, i.e., ageneral shift from the university as a place that creates politically mature citizens to a place that churns out better trained cogs for companies, education may have become trauma."
While mandatory unpaid internships seems to be a new development, pretty much everything else existed in the 70's and 80's when I did my 8-year gig. All of the Pre-XXX students were totally grade oriented, with some engaging in lab sabotage to drag down the competition. Parents during HS recruiting were told the majors with the highest GPA for the Pre-Laws. The only advantage of all those bloody Pre-XXX students were that the courses not on their tracks were quite small and TA'ing paid the bills for grad school.
Boomer parents are (properly?) criticized for cocooning their kids. Maybe this makes them less able to handle the "toss into the deep end" that college can represent. I figured it out, with the more-senior undergrads being fonts of wisdom (in non-major classes, dorm RA's and just those on the halls).
I wasn't that amazing or rare. I did well in some courses, got slaughtered in others. Science majors were <3.0 departmental averages so my 2.87 didn't look so bad, what with all those advanced/small courses. I also learned by my 4th year that if I studied Su-Th I could goof off F-Sa with a clear conscience. And man, was I pissed at the non-science folks who had half the hours/week in classes...
While mandatory unpaid internships seems to be a new development, pretty much everything else existed in the 70's and 80's when I did my 8-year gig. All of the Pre-XXX students were totally grade oriented, with some engaging in lab sabotage to drag down the competition. Parents during HS recruiting were told the majors with the highest GPA for the Pre-Laws. The only advantage of all those bloody Pre-XXX students were that the courses not on their tracks were quite small and TA'ing paid the bills for grad school.
Boomer parents are (properly?) criticized for cocooning their kids. Maybe this makes them less able to handle the "toss into the deep end" that college can represent. I figured it out, with the more-senior undergrads being fonts of wisdom (in non-major classes, dorm RA's and just those on the halls).
I wasn't that amazing or rare. I did well in some courses, got slaughtered in others. Science majors were <3.0 departmental averages so my 2.87 didn't look so bad, what with all those advanced/small courses. I also learned by my 4th year that if I studied Su-Th I could goof off F-Sa with a clear conscience. And man, was I pissed at the non-science folks who had half the hours/week in classes...
It's not the same at all. This stuff has always been around but the difference is it used to only apply to a small subset. If you want to go pre law or med yeah get ready for hell. If you want to work at a newspaper or in marketing it was a much easier time. Nowadays unless you're in tech good luck finding a job remotely related to your major if you don't have a resume packed full of extracurriculars and experience.
There is also way more competition. The college population is triple the size it was in the 80's. Meanwhile the job market continues to shrink in many ways. Maybe kids should be getting different degrees but at 17 it's not surprising they don't know journalism isn't a great degree to have.
There is also way more competition. The college population is triple the size it was in the 80's. Meanwhile the job market continues to shrink in many ways. Maybe kids should be getting different degrees but at 17 it's not surprising they don't know journalism isn't a great degree to have.
>Maybe kids should be getting different degrees but at 17 >it's not surprising they don't know journalism isn't a >great degree to have.
I think this is casting the problem in the wrong light. Look at this from the employer's side instead. I dont see any work being done in an office that couldnt be done by a journalism major, or a english lit major, or a music major. If you are a semi-competent student who tried to learn at least a few things in college, you are more than qualified for the majority of jobs.
Employers have just turned applications into a competition to see who can gather the most bullet points on their resume. Besides the few truly skilled jobs out there - engineers, scientists, medical professionals - a basic ability to read and write is all you need.
If there really is a problem on the educational side the focus should be on making sure students are learning and doing more, instead of trying to dictate what degrees are "valuable".
I think this is casting the problem in the wrong light. Look at this from the employer's side instead. I dont see any work being done in an office that couldnt be done by a journalism major, or a english lit major, or a music major. If you are a semi-competent student who tried to learn at least a few things in college, you are more than qualified for the majority of jobs.
Employers have just turned applications into a competition to see who can gather the most bullet points on their resume. Besides the few truly skilled jobs out there - engineers, scientists, medical professionals - a basic ability to read and write is all you need.
If there really is a problem on the educational side the focus should be on making sure students are learning and doing more, instead of trying to dictate what degrees are "valuable".
> Maybe it didn't use to be a trauma - but in the time of more and more focus on grades and GPAs, forced student competition, "career days", CV polishing courses, mandatory unpaid internships, i.e., ageneral shift from the university as a place that creates politically mature citizens to a place that churns out better trained cogs for companies, education may have become trauma.
This together with high tuition fees makes school a high pressure place. When I went to school in the 80s there wasn't this constant pressure students have now.
This together with high tuition fees makes school a high pressure place. When I went to school in the 80s there wasn't this constant pressure students have now.
Perhaps your definition of trauma is vastly different than the more commonly accepted definition. IMO, the points you made illustrate that modern education is challenging, definitely not trauma.
"Most disabilities that I am asked to accommodate seem to be unspecified and are remedied by providing the students with a separate, quiet location and an extra 30 minutes to take an exam."
This is where the prof can actually start to pull some numbers out to back up his observations. Measuring the number of disabilities that are assuaged by having an unfair advantage over the class curve and comparing that to GPA may actually change things. Until then, expect the prof to continue to bitch.
This is where the prof can actually start to pull some numbers out to back up his observations. Measuring the number of disabilities that are assuaged by having an unfair advantage over the class curve and comparing that to GPA may actually change things. Until then, expect the prof to continue to bitch.
Talk to kids in China, India, Japan, Korea, etc. about focus on grades and the tremendous pressure of getting into prestigious schools. They have pressure.
Students in North America have it easy compared to them. Are students in East and south Asia just harder than their north American counterparts?
Students in North America have it easy compared to them. Are students in East and south Asia just harder than their north American counterparts?
Calling some of this infantilization is kind of sad.
Walking around in slippers and napping wherever is a consequence of freedom from social conventions, or at least an environment where social conventions are anomalous and rapidly changing. So is promiscuity, once called free love. These are things that universities have always been havens for. Others things (puppy rooms) are experimental, also an artifact of a nonconformist and liberal environment.
Students and academics have more license to be quirky and eccentric than lawyers and soccer moms. That's a good thing.
I also cringe when I here about PC student audiences that can't tolerate stand up comedy. It all feels like a part of the recreational righteous rage, liking to be right and pointing at the kid that said the C-word.
OTOH, it's also a side effect of effective social movements that take place at universities. If I look back at social movements that universities played major roles in, I don't think they've been bad. Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime. Amazingly. There is tremendous support and solidarity from the public. It's a breathtaking rise in collective conscience. If I'm going to be yelled at by 19 year olds for saying "tranny" but we get to a point where transexuals can work and live normally, homosexuals can have families…. I'll take it.
Part of the way that is achieved intolerance towards "assholes," homophobes, xenophobes, sexists. Students, being young and insufferable spray that all around. Long term though, it sticks mostly where it should.
But yea, I agree. Young people are annoying.
Walking around in slippers and napping wherever is a consequence of freedom from social conventions, or at least an environment where social conventions are anomalous and rapidly changing. So is promiscuity, once called free love. These are things that universities have always been havens for. Others things (puppy rooms) are experimental, also an artifact of a nonconformist and liberal environment.
Students and academics have more license to be quirky and eccentric than lawyers and soccer moms. That's a good thing.
I also cringe when I here about PC student audiences that can't tolerate stand up comedy. It all feels like a part of the recreational righteous rage, liking to be right and pointing at the kid that said the C-word.
OTOH, it's also a side effect of effective social movements that take place at universities. If I look back at social movements that universities played major roles in, I don't think they've been bad. Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime. Amazingly. There is tremendous support and solidarity from the public. It's a breathtaking rise in collective conscience. If I'm going to be yelled at by 19 year olds for saying "tranny" but we get to a point where transexuals can work and live normally, homosexuals can have families…. I'll take it.
Part of the way that is achieved intolerance towards "assholes," homophobes, xenophobes, sexists. Students, being young and insufferable spray that all around. Long term though, it sticks mostly where it should.
But yea, I agree. Young people are annoying.
None of the campus movements that brought about any change was created by students afraid of words, though. Quite the opposite. These students aren't standing up for anything except their own inability to understand comedy, irony, and other non-straightforward ways of expression that they should have learned before they even got in high school. In other words, the only thing these students are standing up for now is their own stupidity. And the only thing that's changed from the past is the adults who know better are now letting it happen instead of telling the students to shut up with their stupidity. Thus, no comedians on campus. Because humor is one of those ways of expressing oneself described above.
I dont think its sad to call some of the described behaviors and accommodations infantilization.
Higher ed is there to educate, prepare and provide networking and access to the job market. Very few people go with the end goal of learning for learning's sake. People attend higher ed as a vehicle to a better economic future. As such, coddling and comforting and extending parental protection institutionally does a disservice to people growing up and getting ready for the cold world out there which awaits all.
The world is by nature wild and unsanitized. I understand the need to want and bring about a better more civilized, if less natural world, but I don't think suppressing reality is the way to subjugate reality to our form.
Higher ed is there to educate, prepare and provide networking and access to the job market. Very few people go with the end goal of learning for learning's sake. People attend higher ed as a vehicle to a better economic future. As such, coddling and comforting and extending parental protection institutionally does a disservice to people growing up and getting ready for the cold world out there which awaits all.
The world is by nature wild and unsanitized. I understand the need to want and bring about a better more civilized, if less natural world, but I don't think suppressing reality is the way to subjugate reality to our form.
> Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime.
T* is a slur that is too often the last thing a woman hears before she is brutally murdered.
T* is a slur that is too often the last thing a woman hears before she is brutally murdered.
To add to this, i've quoted a detailed definition.
"the term "tranny" is used as a dehumanizing slur to describe transgender individuals and is oftentimes the last word someone hears before they are brutally attacked. Similar to the anti-gay F-word, the term "tranny" is commonly used to humiliate and degrade transgender individuals."
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-bass/why-we-shouldnt-use...
"the term "tranny" is used as a dehumanizing slur to describe transgender individuals and is oftentimes the last word someone hears before they are brutally attacked. Similar to the anti-gay F-word, the term "tranny" is commonly used to humiliate and degrade transgender individuals."
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-bass/why-we-shouldnt-use...
So is 'Jew'. When people hate you, your name is a hateful slur even if its what you call yourself. You can't win this game. You also can't win the game of arguing that a word isn't hateful so I guess I shouldn't be commenting back.
> So is 'Jew'. When people hate you, your name is a hateful slur even if its what you call yourself.
This is utterly ignorant of context. There are names used exclusively in hatred against a group, and there are names a group is happy to be called.
By your logic, perhaps we should be going around referring to women as whores, black people as niggers, trans people as trannies, gay people as faggots, because "you can't win this game".
Yet civilised society does not. And with good reason.
This is utterly ignorant of context. There are names used exclusively in hatred against a group, and there are names a group is happy to be called.
By your logic, perhaps we should be going around referring to women as whores, black people as niggers, trans people as trannies, gay people as faggots, because "you can't win this game".
Yet civilised society does not. And with good reason.
Personally, the only person I've known to use tranny conversationally is transexual. I know quite a few girls that call their friends hoors affectionately and ironically. Words mean what people saying and hearing them think they mean.
In any case, I'm not arguing for anything in particular. I don't think there is a logic to this. My point is not about what words we can use.
My point is that anger and insurrection against systematic hate, cultures of intolerance, injustice are directed against the instruments of intolerance. But, rage and insurrection are not always nuanced tools especially in the hands of young people. They get mad at the words themselves, not just the hate. Sometimes it's fueled by the wrong thing, like enjoying moral platitudes. Sometimes by the right thing.
Either way, I think the net results are good.. essential even, but some of the side effects can be insufferable.
In any case, I'm not arguing for anything in particular. I don't think there is a logic to this. My point is not about what words we can use.
My point is that anger and insurrection against systematic hate, cultures of intolerance, injustice are directed against the instruments of intolerance. But, rage and insurrection are not always nuanced tools especially in the hands of young people. They get mad at the words themselves, not just the hate. Sometimes it's fueled by the wrong thing, like enjoying moral platitudes. Sometimes by the right thing.
Either way, I think the net results are good.. essential even, but some of the side effects can be insufferable.
> I know quite a few girls that call their friends hoors affectionately and ironically.
Oppressed groups sometimes reclaim slurs against them. That's fine, if it hurts anyone, it is merely themselves. It's not others hurting them.
Oppressed groups sometimes reclaim slurs against them. That's fine, if it hurts anyone, it is merely themselves. It's not others hurting them.
Well, we can agree that the results are good, but the problem against broad use of individually-defined words is that they are individually defined. So okay, you call your friend a whore, and she knows it's a joke because people at large don't understand what polyamory is. Cool. That's fine.
But what about the chucklehead fifteen feet away eating a sandwich, who just heard you reaffirm his belief that it's okay to call women whores, because they're not really people, right, just sex objects?
For you and your friend, that's fine. But this the sandwich eating bastard goes out and --secure in the knowledge that women don't get a say, because nobody around him uses language that suggests they do-- rapes someone, and doesn't think it's a big deal.
And there's that rape culture that people my age are always screaming about. And there's the hate culture that people my age are always screaming about.
We're not screaming about you, who are as annoying to us as we are to you. We're screaming about the people you're teaching by example. The ones who rape women (1 in 4 women have been raped in the US) and men (1 in 6), who murder gay and lesbian and bi and trans* folks (I don't have numbers there, mea culpa) and face no reprisal, because nobody in power takes it seriously.
Seriously. We get twitchy about those words because hearing them might mean that we're about to be killed.
But what about the chucklehead fifteen feet away eating a sandwich, who just heard you reaffirm his belief that it's okay to call women whores, because they're not really people, right, just sex objects?
For you and your friend, that's fine. But this the sandwich eating bastard goes out and --secure in the knowledge that women don't get a say, because nobody around him uses language that suggests they do-- rapes someone, and doesn't think it's a big deal.
And there's that rape culture that people my age are always screaming about. And there's the hate culture that people my age are always screaming about.
We're not screaming about you, who are as annoying to us as we are to you. We're screaming about the people you're teaching by example. The ones who rape women (1 in 4 women have been raped in the US) and men (1 in 6), who murder gay and lesbian and bi and trans* folks (I don't have numbers there, mea culpa) and face no reprisal, because nobody in power takes it seriously.
Seriously. We get twitchy about those words because hearing them might mean that we're about to be killed.
I have to admit that I still sometimes instinctively feel an intense dislike for humorless, shrill, 'social justice warriors' or 'feminists' (using the word in the way I find it often used negatively around me).
I don't know why I react negatively, considering that I consider myself a feminist, but I suppose that's the whole point of something being 'instinctive'. It's a heuristic that may or may not make sense. But it's one borne of ignorance and the privilege of not having to think about these things (being a white, highly-educated male), and being surrounded by, I assume, upstanding males who don't rape, and upstanding white folk who are not racists.
it's posts like yours that remind me that my instincts can be wrong and harmful in practice, and while I'm free to feel as I feel, it's posts like yours, and stories from my friends, that shock me whenever I hear them, and that give me some perspective and make me realize my instinct is not a precious thing to protect or defend above everything else.
Please remember that it really helps to explain things the way you do. I'm not saying it's a responsibility to do so, or that not doing so gives 'us' the right to remain oblivious. Far from it.
I'm simply saying that practically speaking, posts like yours are much more helpful than blanket judgments and (perceived) knee-jerk outrage. It benefits everyone to try and paint a picture of a perspective that is not necessarily shared personally, however unnecessary it should be to do so.
I wish I was good enough to be sensitive all by myself, but the sad fact is that even I as a person with a sizable amount of close friends who are gay, bisexual, female, or minorities (in every sense of the word), can forget that not everyone shares my rather privileged perspective.
And it's really helpful for me to be reminded that, say, a rape joke might not be a problem for me, but that it might be a problem in a larger context where rapists justify their actions by it.
I don't know why I react negatively, considering that I consider myself a feminist, but I suppose that's the whole point of something being 'instinctive'. It's a heuristic that may or may not make sense. But it's one borne of ignorance and the privilege of not having to think about these things (being a white, highly-educated male), and being surrounded by, I assume, upstanding males who don't rape, and upstanding white folk who are not racists.
it's posts like yours that remind me that my instincts can be wrong and harmful in practice, and while I'm free to feel as I feel, it's posts like yours, and stories from my friends, that shock me whenever I hear them, and that give me some perspective and make me realize my instinct is not a precious thing to protect or defend above everything else.
Please remember that it really helps to explain things the way you do. I'm not saying it's a responsibility to do so, or that not doing so gives 'us' the right to remain oblivious. Far from it.
I'm simply saying that practically speaking, posts like yours are much more helpful than blanket judgments and (perceived) knee-jerk outrage. It benefits everyone to try and paint a picture of a perspective that is not necessarily shared personally, however unnecessary it should be to do so.
I wish I was good enough to be sensitive all by myself, but the sad fact is that even I as a person with a sizable amount of close friends who are gay, bisexual, female, or minorities (in every sense of the word), can forget that not everyone shares my rather privileged perspective.
And it's really helpful for me to be reminded that, say, a rape joke might not be a problem for me, but that it might be a problem in a larger context where rapists justify their actions by it.
And thus the pointless treadmill continues.
http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism-treadmi...
http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism-treadmi...
Instead of calling the treadmill pointless, mayhaps destroy the power source that keeps the treadmill going. People treat the mentally disabled with such contempt, disrespect, cruelty, and even hatred. That's why the treadmill runs. That's why people try to evade having their language pressed into the service of hatred and oppression. Language is the site of many battles.
> People treat the mentally disabled with such contempt, disrespect, cruelty, and even hatred.
Really? I cannot imagine why anyone would feel hatred towards a mentally disabled person, and while some people might be cruel, they're probably cruel towards anybody who's weaker than them. So I don't really agree with your categorization.
However, I admit that a lot of people use the terms "retarded", "stupid", "idiot", etc. in a mean, hateful, cruel way, but these terms as insults are usually directed towards people who are not mentally disabled, exactly because they are not! (When you call a retard a "retard", that's not an insult, it's the truth. It's an insult only if you call a non-retarded person a "retard"!)
Really? I cannot imagine why anyone would feel hatred towards a mentally disabled person, and while some people might be cruel, they're probably cruel towards anybody who's weaker than them. So I don't really agree with your categorization.
However, I admit that a lot of people use the terms "retarded", "stupid", "idiot", etc. in a mean, hateful, cruel way, but these terms as insults are usually directed towards people who are not mentally disabled, exactly because they are not! (When you call a retard a "retard", that's not an insult, it's the truth. It's an insult only if you call a non-retarded person a "retard"!)
I'm sorry its difficult for you to navigate the complexities of interacting with other individuals?? We're dealing with people here, not ideas. The only possible way you could thing T* and Jew are equivalent is if you are arguing in bad faith in order to express your exasperation. You can express your exasperation in more constructive ways, and honestly I think you were speaking in good faith and if you just edited your post to remove the slur and let it go, being made slightly wiser about other human beings, then everything would just be fine.
I am 100% sure you can tell the difference between calling someone a t* and calling someone a Jew, and I am 100% sure you know when it is appropriate to identify someone as a Jew and when doing so is othering and degrading.
I am 100% sure you can tell the difference between calling someone a t* and calling someone a Jew, and I am 100% sure you know when it is appropriate to identify someone as a Jew and when doing so is othering and degrading.
As a trans, I'm more offended of your use of "t*" than "tranny". The word isn't unspeakable and to me, there is no difference between "she's trans" and "she's a tranny". By treating it as an "unspeakable" you give it power.
Context matters. If someone wants to use "trans" as an insult, they will.
"Don't speak to me you trans" and "Don't speak to me you tranny" are both offensive remarks. The difference of using "trans" or "tranny" doesn't change the message.
I'd also like to note that the use of "tranny" is still used self-referencingly by many trans.
"Queer" is an insult where I am from but many homosexuals are increasingly using it self-referencingly ("I'm queer.") and I see less people get all up-in-arms over the word "queer" than "tranny", which I find strange.
Context matters. If someone wants to use "trans" as an insult, they will.
"Don't speak to me you trans" and "Don't speak to me you tranny" are both offensive remarks. The difference of using "trans" or "tranny" doesn't change the message.
I'd also like to note that the use of "tranny" is still used self-referencingly by many trans.
"Queer" is an insult where I am from but many homosexuals are increasingly using it self-referencingly ("I'm queer.") and I see less people get all up-in-arms over the word "queer" than "tranny", which I find strange.
My choice of words is shaped by the wishes of the trans woman closest to me in life. I will respect your personal decisions about the words you use, but my use of words must be subordinate to my respect for the people I hold dearest to me, and I will advocate for a world where they do not need to put up with words that inspire fear being used blithely by people indifferent or hostile towards them.
You're free to advocate otherwise. Others are free to ignore you or advocate against you.
It is my belief that giving words power is silly. By fearing them you show others that they can use that word to control you. If you are indifferent, their words fall flat. They become weak and powerless. By advocating the fear of words, you give them increased power. You teach people to fear the word because it can hold power over others. Those who wish to abuse that power will see that and use the word.
In the end you result in the abusers having more power, people with no ill-intent to feel bad for the usage, and people whom the word is targeted at grow more fearful of it. That's a lose-lose for all involved.
By not giving the word an "unspeakable" status - the abusers realize the word holds no power and stop using it, people who have no ill-intent don't have to feel bad for using the wrong word, and the people whom the word targets don't grow to fear the word.
I find advocates of making a word "unspeakable" because it, in certain contexts, can be "bad" is counterproductive is all. You increase the power of the word, nasty people will use it with even more glee, and nothing is accomplished other than self-victimization.
It is my belief that giving words power is silly. By fearing them you show others that they can use that word to control you. If you are indifferent, their words fall flat. They become weak and powerless. By advocating the fear of words, you give them increased power. You teach people to fear the word because it can hold power over others. Those who wish to abuse that power will see that and use the word.
In the end you result in the abusers having more power, people with no ill-intent to feel bad for the usage, and people whom the word is targeted at grow more fearful of it. That's a lose-lose for all involved.
By not giving the word an "unspeakable" status - the abusers realize the word holds no power and stop using it, people who have no ill-intent don't have to feel bad for using the wrong word, and the people whom the word targets don't grow to fear the word.
I find advocates of making a word "unspeakable" because it, in certain contexts, can be "bad" is counterproductive is all. You increase the power of the word, nasty people will use it with even more glee, and nothing is accomplished other than self-victimization.
This is also called the euphemism treadmill. Over time almost any word assigned to a social stigma will become pejorative. The word retard used to be the only way to refer to the "differently abled" in polite society.
Well, it's not so much 'words that are assigned social stigma' as it is 'words that become red flags for people who might be murdered right after hearing them'.
Which I think is a pretty solid argument for not using those words, unless you're cool with frequently hanging the threat of murder over <insert minority>'s heads. Personally, I'm not cool with that.
Which I think is a pretty solid argument for not using those words, unless you're cool with frequently hanging the threat of murder over <insert minority>'s heads. Personally, I'm not cool with that.
This really isn't that hard. Do you refer to black people as "niggers", or gay men as "fags"? No? Okay. Now add "tranny" to that mental list.
> Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime.
"Tranny" is a vicious slur against trans people, on par with "faggot" for a gay person or "nigger" for a black person. Please edit your post.
"Tranny" is a vicious slur against trans people, on par with "faggot" for a gay person or "nigger" for a black person. Please edit your post.
Seriously? Maybe you are trolling, to reinforce the point of the article. Otherwise, in context, I think using those words helped make the point of the attitude shift over time.
Your post is triggering me. Please add trigger warnings before you use those words.
I was making a point, please consider the context and intent.
[deleted]
Seriously? Now even words can be vicious? Almost as stupid as calling them "micro-aggressions" when nobody is hurt.
If we are to be truly tolerant, we must tolerate intolerance.
Nope, intolerance is the one thing that cannot be tolertated. Karl Popper:
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
Problem is that each faction thinks that the others' intolerance is intolerable, while their own intolerance is necessary intolerance of intolerance.
> it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
Then we can be intolerant of people who argue with violence instead of with words. That doesn't require us to be intolerant of people who hold certain opinions.
Then we can be intolerant of people who argue with violence instead of with words. That doesn't require us to be intolerant of people who hold certain opinions.
> "and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols" ... "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal"
This is circular and I think not very well thought out. Declaring something criminal is "answering arguments by the use of ... pistols", just as he is railing against in the same paragraph. Who defines tolerance and intolerance? Who gets to draw the line? I think being tolerant necessarily means tolerating the intolerant, and I think people arguing otherwise are being the very intolerant they are trying to defeat.
You can't be tolerant sometimes, intolerant others, and then hold an olive branch high above your head, claiming to be tolerant. It doesn't work that way, in the same way that you can't claim to be a pacifist if you support pacifism sometimes, and violence others. It just is a false statement.
This is circular and I think not very well thought out. Declaring something criminal is "answering arguments by the use of ... pistols", just as he is railing against in the same paragraph. Who defines tolerance and intolerance? Who gets to draw the line? I think being tolerant necessarily means tolerating the intolerant, and I think people arguing otherwise are being the very intolerant they are trying to defeat.
You can't be tolerant sometimes, intolerant others, and then hold an olive branch high above your head, claiming to be tolerant. It doesn't work that way, in the same way that you can't claim to be a pacifist if you support pacifism sometimes, and violence others. It just is a false statement.
The Amish are "intolerant" yet we tolerate their existence. Anybody that claims to value diversity should understand that for there to be differences that there has to be some sort of boundary between things, which crudely can be called "intolerance." The Amish are Amish because they are not us, they have separated themselves from us.
The Amish don't go around reenacting the various Anabaptist slaughters of Catholics from the 16/17th centuries either. So, we tolerate their views because they're pacifists, thus are not a threat to society at large.
> The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
> Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
- Karl Popper
> Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
- Karl Popper
Might be a rare experience, but as a South American in an U.S university, I couldn't relate to many American Latinos for their neurotic concern with micro aggressions.
Jokes that would be seen as amusing in my country were taken as a personal insult and avoided at all costs. Many interesting non-latinos would gradually be excluded for no reason.
Ironically, I fostered relationships with apparently "racist white males" who were more concerned with the content of conversations than 'fighting the enemy'.
Jokes that would be seen as amusing in my country were taken as a personal insult and avoided at all costs. Many interesting non-latinos would gradually be excluded for no reason.
Ironically, I fostered relationships with apparently "racist white males" who were more concerned with the content of conversations than 'fighting the enemy'.
From my experiences the idea of microaggression is more common in people of more suburban-like American lifestyles. As an immigrant, and friend of many different immigrants in America, the idea of anybody being offended, or taking things as a personal insult is nearly unheard of. But, people who may not know many people of different backgrounds seem to think they should be offended, and take things personally.
I agree. I've generally been part of groups that were very mixed as far as culture, sexual preference, or skin color goes, and most of our interactions went well beyond 'micro-aggression' right into overt racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, and whatnot. I've found that the more mixed the group was, the more of this kind of stuff happened and the less sensitive people seemed to be about it.
And to be clear, that's just an observation. As a white, male, highly-educated person I try to avoid judgements or too many opinions on this issue.
And to be clear, that's just an observation. As a white, male, highly-educated person I try to avoid judgements or too many opinions on this issue.
For me, the problem is that the microaggressions that I've dealt with tend to be crude attempts to understand what it means to be transgender like asking for my old name, if I had a boyfriend or girlfriend before transitioning, and so forth. Many of the people asking the questions weren't intending to be rude, but our society has deemed one's gender identity as an immutable fact of nature (which doesn't really fit the facts neither of biology nor psychology). So, people have some default assumptions about the condition of gender which puts them in an awkward position when asking those questions which can be offensive (I've learned to deal with the situation by asking questions back to them in a more Socratic/positive manner instead of being offended) for some people.
I don't think it's too much to effort for schools and organizations to post information on what is and isn't a microaggression but I do think people who are the targets of microaggressions ought to consider a more proactive approach to correcting such social missteps.
I don't think it's too much to effort for schools and organizations to post information on what is and isn't a microaggression but I do think people who are the targets of microaggressions ought to consider a more proactive approach to correcting such social missteps.
> hat it means to be transgender like asking for my old name, if I had a boyfriend or girlfriend before transitioning, and so forth
> our society has deemed one's gender identity as an immutable fact of nature
Did it ever occur to you that these people were simply curious about your experience in life because it was so much unlike their own?
> our society has deemed one's gender identity as an immutable fact of nature
Did it ever occur to you that these people were simply curious about your experience in life because it was so much unlike their own?
> Many of the people asking the questions weren't intending to be rude...
But norea-armozel still classified them as microaggressions. I think that's a problem. If even ordinary, naive curiosity, without intent to be rude, is classified as aggression, well... you're going to be on the receiving end of a lot of it, then.
Hopefully only once per person, because once you make it clear that you find the questions (even asked without malice) to be hurtful, then they shouldn't ask a second time. But that's probably a step you're going to have to take with a fairly large number of individuals.
Maybe the problem is not with ordinary human curiosity. Maybe the problem is that you're classifying ordinary curiosity as aggression. Does it really harm you (cause you actual emotional pain/harm) if people are curious about your experience?
But norea-armozel still classified them as microaggressions. I think that's a problem. If even ordinary, naive curiosity, without intent to be rude, is classified as aggression, well... you're going to be on the receiving end of a lot of it, then.
Hopefully only once per person, because once you make it clear that you find the questions (even asked without malice) to be hurtful, then they shouldn't ask a second time. But that's probably a step you're going to have to take with a fairly large number of individuals.
Maybe the problem is not with ordinary human curiosity. Maybe the problem is that you're classifying ordinary curiosity as aggression. Does it really harm you (cause you actual emotional pain/harm) if people are curious about your experience?
Some things are just not open for discussion. Whatever I was before transition isn't who I am now. I think it's best to focus on who I am and not what people think I was. My identity is fairly simple to comprehend. Dead naming as it's called (when using or asking for a transgender person's previous legal name) isn't something you should do once you're informed that it's rude and dehumanizing (because the question itself assumes someone's name isn't their own in the first place).
Well, you simply have different assumptions than some (most?) of us. For me, "man" and "woman" mean biological sex, not gender. Also, for me, a "name" is about the least personal thing about myself - it's what others call me, so it's inherently a cultural thing that depends on the social contract. For example, if you change your name without a good reason, most people would simply assume you're trying to run away from your past or avoid justice.
>Well, you simply have different assumptions than some (most?) of us. For me, "man" and "woman" mean biological sex, not gender
Um no, my view isn't an assumption. Gender isn't sex. People don't call a boy a man or a girl a woman. Maybe US western culture assumes sex = gender but the rest of the world has some form of distinction from sex (biological) and gender (social).
>Also, for me, a "name" is about the least personal thing about myself - it's what others call me, so it's inherently a cultural thing that depends on the social contract. For example, if you change your name without a good reason, most people would simply assume you're trying to run away from your past or avoid justice.
In our US western culture a name is a name whether given or self-attributed. No one demands Prince or Madonna to give their legal names. We know them by those names in terms of their public actions. If I greet myself as Veronica it's safe to assume that is my name. It doesn't require a background check in a social setting like a party or a meetup. It's not like I'm looking to get a security clearance.
Also, there's no such thing as a good reason to change one's name. You just change it for your reasons. The good and bad about it is merely a subjective valuation of the act of the change. It has no bearing in terms of the character of the person. If you can't just accept my name is Veronica upon first meeting then maybe you're just a jerk?
Um no, my view isn't an assumption. Gender isn't sex. People don't call a boy a man or a girl a woman. Maybe US western culture assumes sex = gender but the rest of the world has some form of distinction from sex (biological) and gender (social).
>Also, for me, a "name" is about the least personal thing about myself - it's what others call me, so it's inherently a cultural thing that depends on the social contract. For example, if you change your name without a good reason, most people would simply assume you're trying to run away from your past or avoid justice.
In our US western culture a name is a name whether given or self-attributed. No one demands Prince or Madonna to give their legal names. We know them by those names in terms of their public actions. If I greet myself as Veronica it's safe to assume that is my name. It doesn't require a background check in a social setting like a party or a meetup. It's not like I'm looking to get a security clearance.
Also, there's no such thing as a good reason to change one's name. You just change it for your reasons. The good and bad about it is merely a subjective valuation of the act of the change. It has no bearing in terms of the character of the person. If you can't just accept my name is Veronica upon first meeting then maybe you're just a jerk?
> People don't call a boy a man or a girl a woman
Well, a "girl" is a subset of "woman", and is definitely more a woman than a man. But we can agree to disagree.
> If I greet myself as Veronica it's safe to assume that is my name.
Well, if you introduce yourself as "Veronica", of course I'll call you by that name. But at the same time, I still consider "What's your real/previous name?" a perfectly valid question (based on curiosity, not insults), just like I would consider it for Prince or Madonna.
Well, a "girl" is a subset of "woman", and is definitely more a woman than a man. But we can agree to disagree.
> If I greet myself as Veronica it's safe to assume that is my name.
Well, if you introduce yourself as "Veronica", of course I'll call you by that name. But at the same time, I still consider "What's your real/previous name?" a perfectly valid question (based on curiosity, not insults), just like I would consider it for Prince or Madonna.
>"What's your real/previous name?" a perfectly valid question
That's your problem right there. Veronica is my real (legal) name. It's not for you or anyone to decide what is my real (legal) name in a social situation. This is not a matter of a background check for a job or a security clearance. If you as a person can't acknowledge my name and my existence as is then the middle finger is going to be my answer back (and probably my fist if it gets rowdy).
That's your problem right there. Veronica is my real (legal) name. It's not for you or anyone to decide what is my real (legal) name in a social situation. This is not a matter of a background check for a job or a security clearance. If you as a person can't acknowledge my name and my existence as is then the middle finger is going to be my answer back (and probably my fist if it gets rowdy).
I love the part about students walking around in their pajamas at the library during finals week. The "puppy room" sounds utterly ridiculous.
It's been a long time, but this happened at my University too. It was just part of the relentless competition among students to make other students think THEY had it so much harder than anyone else. It was like a badge of honor to be taking a 300 level class as a freshmen, or have to study all night long, or to be starving because you had so little money.
I did the same thing.
And when you get out of college, it just transfers over to parenting.
New parents walking around in sweat pants and their hair a mess to show that they got no sleep due to the newborn. Then when you have 4 kids, you like to pack 300 lbs of kid crap around with you to show that you have WAY more kids than that new parent, or you talk about how many sports you are taking your kids to, how big your grocery bill is, or whatever. It's all so silly. I'm not sure why we seek this recognition.
I'm wondering what comes after parenting at this point... I'm assuming wealth and how we use our freedom among other empty-nesters???
EDIT:
I'd like to state that I actually don't find any problem with much of this, I just don't understand it.
When we are in college, we are facing the most challenging courses and living situations we have ever faced to this point. We are learning from books, and how to handle life's struggles.
As a new parent, having a newborn completely uproots your life, and it IS incredibly challenging. EVERYTHING has changed at this point.
Then with lots of kids, yes, it too is crazy.
From then on, I have no idea.
And the "puppy room", well, to each their own.
It's been a long time, but this happened at my University too. It was just part of the relentless competition among students to make other students think THEY had it so much harder than anyone else. It was like a badge of honor to be taking a 300 level class as a freshmen, or have to study all night long, or to be starving because you had so little money.
I did the same thing.
And when you get out of college, it just transfers over to parenting.
New parents walking around in sweat pants and their hair a mess to show that they got no sleep due to the newborn. Then when you have 4 kids, you like to pack 300 lbs of kid crap around with you to show that you have WAY more kids than that new parent, or you talk about how many sports you are taking your kids to, how big your grocery bill is, or whatever. It's all so silly. I'm not sure why we seek this recognition.
I'm wondering what comes after parenting at this point... I'm assuming wealth and how we use our freedom among other empty-nesters???
EDIT:
I'd like to state that I actually don't find any problem with much of this, I just don't understand it.
When we are in college, we are facing the most challenging courses and living situations we have ever faced to this point. We are learning from books, and how to handle life's struggles.
As a new parent, having a newborn completely uproots your life, and it IS incredibly challenging. EVERYTHING has changed at this point.
Then with lots of kids, yes, it too is crazy.
From then on, I have no idea.
And the "puppy room", well, to each their own.
You are interpreting behaviors in other people (hair a mess, sweat pants, lots of stuff) as a status signal. And it may be. But it's also possible that they are not trying to signal a particular kind of status, and are just trying to cope with challenges in their life.
I am, yes. But it's quite transparent most of the time. It's the kid with bad breath, greasy hair, and foul odor in the corner of the computer lab with a stack of books next to him that I would believe is truly stressed and finishing a project.
It's the kid who has pajamas on but still looks great, carries one book, a pen, and a coffee back and forth across the quad 6 times a day that I wonder about :)
It's the kid who has pajamas on but still looks great, carries one book, a pen, and a coffee back and forth across the quad 6 times a day that I wonder about :)
I may be talking out of my ass here, but I think college educated people don't have lots of kids by accident.
The challenge is purely self-inflicted, so it's natural to assume they get something out of it, and status is the most obvious motivation.
Then again, they might be one of those weird mutants who actually like children.
The challenge is purely self-inflicted, so it's natural to assume they get something out of it, and status is the most obvious motivation.
Then again, they might be one of those weird mutants who actually like children.
If you dislike children, you're statistics that you're the weird mutant, not the other way around.
Yeah, the last part was bad sarcasm.
I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, but I imagine the only thing stronger than a social animal's desire for status would have to be their desire for children.
I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, but I imagine the only thing stronger than a social animal's desire for status would have to be their desire for children.
I think that the parents and college students dpcan was talking about are non-intersecting.
I interpreted it as a sequence. The concern for status "transfers over to parenting", perhaps in a similar way as the High School popularity contests are sometimes transferred (hopefully sublimated) to college.
Most people have a set of life goals they accomplish in sequence, such as college -> marriage -> career -> children (Some people switch them around or omit some of them)
Most people have a set of life goals they accomplish in sequence, such as college -> marriage -> career -> children (Some people switch them around or omit some of them)
Folks would bring cots and blankets during Finals week while studying in the Engineering building at my university. Engineering students were not being coddled - you had to put in countless hours of study to make the grade.
I just think it's a young person thing.
Pushing 40, if I went back to college, and all the kids were taking cots to the engineering building to sleep on while somehow getting ready for a final, I'm sure I'd have nothing to do with it. I'd push the midnight oil if I could, then I'd go home, sleep snug in my bed, and be back bright eyed and bushy tailed at 5am to get started again.
But when I was 20, I'd be there with my cot, no question.
Pushing 40, if I went back to college, and all the kids were taking cots to the engineering building to sleep on while somehow getting ready for a final, I'm sure I'd have nothing to do with it. I'd push the midnight oil if I could, then I'd go home, sleep snug in my bed, and be back bright eyed and bushy tailed at 5am to get started again.
But when I was 20, I'd be there with my cot, no question.
Law Students at a proper Law School /= "University Students"
Law students are both sensitive and not. I remember many times students crying while we discussed cases of rape, child murder and domestic violence. As one prof pointed out: "We have over 100 people in the room. Statistically speaking we must have many rape victims, and more than a few perpetrators."
Students cried, but they certainly did not suggest that topics not be taught. Students at professional schools (law/medicine etc) have committed to a profession with a known body of knowledge developed over hundreds, arguably thousands of years. They would not want that very expensive education to be curtailed for the very modern concept that is political correctness.
Law students are both sensitive and not. I remember many times students crying while we discussed cases of rape, child murder and domestic violence. As one prof pointed out: "We have over 100 people in the room. Statistically speaking we must have many rape victims, and more than a few perpetrators."
Students cried, but they certainly did not suggest that topics not be taught. Students at professional schools (law/medicine etc) have committed to a profession with a known body of knowledge developed over hundreds, arguably thousands of years. They would not want that very expensive education to be curtailed for the very modern concept that is political correctness.
Well you say that but then you get Maternal Fetal Medicine specialists suing to opt out of learning how to perform safe abortions because of their political beliefs.
I am less bothered by them choosing not to do them once qualified than not even learning how to do it. There are times when an emergency abortion can save a woman's life and sure it's not likely there's no one around to do it in 2015 USA but what about in an emergency? A power cut after hurricane etc?
Several of my wife's colleagues have done this. It shocks me.
I am less bothered by them choosing not to do them once qualified than not even learning how to do it. There are times when an emergency abortion can save a woman's life and sure it's not likely there's no one around to do it in 2015 USA but what about in an emergency? A power cut after hurricane etc?
Several of my wife's colleagues have done this. It shocks me.
I graduated lawschool only 2 years ago, has it really changed to the point where people would cry in class? I did go to a school that required work experience, so the class was mostly above 24, maybe that made it different.
I graduated 10+ years ago.
The first tears I remember appeared in the first couple crimlaw lectures. I won't go into the facts, but it was a discussion of Keeler (2 Cal.3d 619) that ramped up the emotions for some.
Take any law class. A hundred adults in their mid twenties in one room. That's fifty females. Chances are that at least one of them is pregnant, probably more than one. And there are plenty of parents of both genders. Nobody thinks less of them for being a little more emotional than the norm when forced to addresses certain cases. Nor would they expect the curriculum to be altered.
The first tears I remember appeared in the first couple crimlaw lectures. I won't go into the facts, but it was a discussion of Keeler (2 Cal.3d 619) that ramped up the emotions for some.
Take any law class. A hundred adults in their mid twenties in one room. That's fifty females. Chances are that at least one of them is pregnant, probably more than one. And there are plenty of parents of both genders. Nobody thinks less of them for being a little more emotional than the norm when forced to addresses certain cases. Nor would they expect the curriculum to be altered.
Yet at my law school, there was an unspoken rule in our criminal law classes that the exams would never have a fact pattern invoking sexual assault, for the obvious reasons. Perhaps the truth is always more nuanced than what is being said here.
After one assignment that involving stadiums, there was an unwritten rule at my school that exams would not rely on students knowing anything about american baseball teams.
The attitude I'm detecting here is this: A University is an institution, and how dare its constituents feel like they have the right to determine its culture and how it accommodates them. Students must bow to professors. They must accept the diseased puritan work ethic that infects American culture at all levels, whose main political forces are conservatism and other reactionary politics. If you are suffering, it's your fault and no one owes you any consideration. Crush the individual because the institution, the society, the culture owes them nothing.
This is an authoritarian reaction. People in power complaining that they are losing their power, their place in a hierarchy that places the student body as subordinate to them.
How about this as an alternative point of view: University Students demand respect and a supportive environment. Professors balk at the idea of treating them like there is any merit to their opinions on how they should be treated; reduce them to disparaging caricatures.
This is an authoritarian reaction. People in power complaining that they are losing their power, their place in a hierarchy that places the student body as subordinate to them.
How about this as an alternative point of view: University Students demand respect and a supportive environment. Professors balk at the idea of treating them like there is any merit to their opinions on how they should be treated; reduce them to disparaging caricatures.
The professor's attitude that you're talking about is perfectly valid - as is your own (opposite) attitude. The tension is a result of modern universities being dual-purpose.
On one hand, the university is supposed to be a crucible where difficult problems are confronted, hard work is accomplished by making sacrifices, and mature professionals are forged through years of dedicated effort. On the other hand, it's also the students' home and living space for several years, and it should provide the comfortable and low-stress lifestyle that most adults need to be mentally healthy.
Inflated tuition costs and degree commoditization have lead universities to adopt a "customer is always right" attitude, bringing the two purposes directly in contention in an attempt to please everyone.
The solution is probably somewhere in between. There's a place for puppy rooms, and a place for strict educational standards - but the two shouldn't mix.
On one hand, the university is supposed to be a crucible where difficult problems are confronted, hard work is accomplished by making sacrifices, and mature professionals are forged through years of dedicated effort. On the other hand, it's also the students' home and living space for several years, and it should provide the comfortable and low-stress lifestyle that most adults need to be mentally healthy.
Inflated tuition costs and degree commoditization have lead universities to adopt a "customer is always right" attitude, bringing the two purposes directly in contention in an attempt to please everyone.
The solution is probably somewhere in between. There's a place for puppy rooms, and a place for strict educational standards - but the two shouldn't mix.
As a follow-up, there is a massive lack of empathy in the attitude expressed by the author.
How does anyone know what others are feeling, except when they tell us what they're feeling? This article isn't about how university students are acting like children. It's painting university students as children in order to dismiss their behavior. If you actually wanted to know what university students are doing and why, you'd talk to them. Instead, this article is condescending, patronizing, and (ironically) infantilizing.
To give no trust is to get no trust. If you don't trust university students to act as adults with their own autonomy who can make the best decisions for themselves, which includes effecting the environment and social structures that benefit them most, then, congratulations, you're an authoritarian and have just discarded the basic tenets of liberalism, right libertarianism, left libertarianism (i.e. anarchism), communism, and socialism. After eradicating most post-enlightenment ideas of how to treat people as human beings, what are you left with?
I reiterate: If you treat someone like a child, you're not engaging them. You are dismissing them. And if you treat someone like a child in order to justify a hierarchy and power structure above them, it is very, very clear what historical examples you are following.
How does anyone know what others are feeling, except when they tell us what they're feeling? This article isn't about how university students are acting like children. It's painting university students as children in order to dismiss their behavior. If you actually wanted to know what university students are doing and why, you'd talk to them. Instead, this article is condescending, patronizing, and (ironically) infantilizing.
To give no trust is to get no trust. If you don't trust university students to act as adults with their own autonomy who can make the best decisions for themselves, which includes effecting the environment and social structures that benefit them most, then, congratulations, you're an authoritarian and have just discarded the basic tenets of liberalism, right libertarianism, left libertarianism (i.e. anarchism), communism, and socialism. After eradicating most post-enlightenment ideas of how to treat people as human beings, what are you left with?
I reiterate: If you treat someone like a child, you're not engaging them. You are dismissing them. And if you treat someone like a child in order to justify a hierarchy and power structure above them, it is very, very clear what historical examples you are following.
" If you don't trust university students to act as adults with their own autonomy who can make the best decisions for themselves, which includes effecting the environment and social structures that benefit them most, then, congratulations, you're an authoritarian and have just discarded the basic tenets of liberalism, right libertarianism, left libertarianism (i.e. anarchism), communism, and socialism. After eradicating most post-enlightenment ideas of how to treat people as human beings, what are you left with?"
Not really, many horrible governments have been democratically elected, don't you think it's a good thing that the north told the south that they don't have the right to decide what's good for them? Do you not feel that it's good that the 'free world' told Russia & Germany what is good for them?
There are many example through history of one people telling another that they don't know what's good for them and it being regarded later as a good thing.
Not really, many horrible governments have been democratically elected, don't you think it's a good thing that the north told the south that they don't have the right to decide what's good for them? Do you not feel that it's good that the 'free world' told Russia & Germany what is good for them?
There are many example through history of one people telling another that they don't know what's good for them and it being regarded later as a good thing.
I think you can disagree with people and come into conflict with them, even violent conflict, while still treating them as fully autonomous advocates for themselves. The issue I took was with the mentality that you can ascribe childish, or sub-autonomous agency to another person in order to discredit them and justify dominating them. Slavery, actually, is an example of such pernicious ideas applied to the relation of slave and slave owner. This sort of reasoning is only legitimate in authoritarian philosophies that treat people as at best illegitimately autonomous, needing some sort of patriarchal figure to dictate their lives to them.
In your examples you are making the unspoken assumption, for example, that black slaves were part of the political body that kept them in slavery. Yes, if you look at it as an issue between North and South, it looks like the North telling the South what to do for itself, but that seems completely wrong because we are putting the lots of slaves and slave owners together as if they were one coherent entity.
In a world where freedom of association holds, I believe my statement would hold to the limit that many, many actions we take that seem only to affect us also affect others, and to the limit that freedom of association, like all freedoms, is incoherent in its absolute limit.
In your examples you are making the unspoken assumption, for example, that black slaves were part of the political body that kept them in slavery. Yes, if you look at it as an issue between North and South, it looks like the North telling the South what to do for itself, but that seems completely wrong because we are putting the lots of slaves and slave owners together as if they were one coherent entity.
In a world where freedom of association holds, I believe my statement would hold to the limit that many, many actions we take that seem only to affect us also affect others, and to the limit that freedom of association, like all freedoms, is incoherent in its absolute limit.
I would hardly characterize exposing people to opinions/facts they dislike / are made uncomfortable by as domination.
It's a simple fact that if you have to have an anxiety attack because you hear things you don't like that you are incapable of emotional self-regulation, hence behaving like a child, hence being referred to as childish. The only thing I would say is unfair about characterizing the behavior as childish is that it is an insult to those under 18 that are able to emotionally self-regulate.
It's a reasonable expectation of adults that they are able to regulate their own emotions and hear phrases like "America is the land of opportunity" without having an emotional breakdown.
It's a simple fact that if you have to have an anxiety attack because you hear things you don't like that you are incapable of emotional self-regulation, hence behaving like a child, hence being referred to as childish. The only thing I would say is unfair about characterizing the behavior as childish is that it is an insult to those under 18 that are able to emotionally self-regulate.
It's a reasonable expectation of adults that they are able to regulate their own emotions and hear phrases like "America is the land of opportunity" without having an emotional breakdown.
So you're saying we should bow down to these students, and we should stop teaching law students about rape law and not even use the word "violation" in terms of law to bow down to students' incredibly stupid wishes? Why not just abolish universities altogether? Hell, why not abolish laws and all of society while we're at it. Since it no longer matters that we're teaching students anything at all, only that they have a "supportive environment." What a load of shit.
How would we abolish universities? If universities are voluntary gatherings of professors and students transformed into cultural institutions that persist longer than any teacher-student relationship, then they are going to exist and the only way you could prevent it is through force. Authoritarian much?
You seem to be incredibly enraged at the idea of freedom of association: The liberty to associate with other people or not on your own terms.
It turns out that universities act as loci of power in the larger hierarchy of our society: Universities confer status and distinction, legitimize skillsets, and some act as hubs of commingling for people who belong to the ruling class. Students need to go to university in order to participate in society as dignified individuals. That is what is at stake here, and your anger is merely anxiety at the idea of an institution of power falling into the hands of powerless people. You would rather they degrade themselves in order to receive a piece of paper that says they are good enough to be respectable parts of modern society.
I trust university students. There are two reasons to go to university: To go into debt so you can get a professional job, and to learn. I trust university students to transform universities in a way that benefits them most. I do not trust the powers that be to do anything but degrade universities into businesses for profit that hold individual legitimacy for ransom, or propaganda centers for the prevailing power structures that shape our society.
If professors want to teach, they ought to lead, not bludgeon students with the authority granted to them by institutional forces. Unquestionable authority is a tumor in any healthy society. When it pervades the system, society itself is terribly ill.
You seem to be incredibly enraged at the idea of freedom of association: The liberty to associate with other people or not on your own terms.
It turns out that universities act as loci of power in the larger hierarchy of our society: Universities confer status and distinction, legitimize skillsets, and some act as hubs of commingling for people who belong to the ruling class. Students need to go to university in order to participate in society as dignified individuals. That is what is at stake here, and your anger is merely anxiety at the idea of an institution of power falling into the hands of powerless people. You would rather they degrade themselves in order to receive a piece of paper that says they are good enough to be respectable parts of modern society.
I trust university students. There are two reasons to go to university: To go into debt so you can get a professional job, and to learn. I trust university students to transform universities in a way that benefits them most. I do not trust the powers that be to do anything but degrade universities into businesses for profit that hold individual legitimacy for ransom, or propaganda centers for the prevailing power structures that shape our society.
If professors want to teach, they ought to lead, not bludgeon students with the authority granted to them by institutional forces. Unquestionable authority is a tumor in any healthy society. When it pervades the system, society itself is terribly ill.
Professors cannot lead though without walking through a landmine of political correctness that could lead to a title 9 inquisition. Students have reached a point where they are not interested in being intellectually challenged in any way that may upset them.
It sounds to me like they're not interested in being in class at all, are causing disruptions in the education of the ones that are, and should be kicked out of university.
My argument is obviously not meant to be taken literally. It's a _reductio ad absurdum_ argument. I should have said destroy instead of abolish, as that is already happening because students are refusing to learn because they're offended by words like 'violation,' and 'rape.' If students refuse to learn even the basic concept of 'violating the law', how can they possibly have hope of becoming lawyers? They can't. They're literally destroying the educational system because they also won't drop out and shovel garbage or whatever they're best at (obviously not much given their incredibly high stupidity). Do you even have universities anymore at that point? No.
It's actually a straw man argument, unless you show that the reasoning I laid out implies that universities will be destroyed. That's probably going to get you fighting down a slippery slope, so I'm not too confident you'll show it to be the case :)
Corporate lawyers don't need to know about rape law, for example. I am neither a law student nor a law professor. It's not my lot to tell them how to hash out their conflicts. I think they can come to an agreement that accommodates everyone; for example, exemptions from class for the period where rape law is discussed.
I think universities will survive if they treat their students as worth negotiating with rather than griping in public about how childish their students are. I went to university. I know how condescending professors can be. I think it's reasonable to infer that this recent spate of public griping stems from anxiety, because authority that is challenged always feels anxious.
Corporate lawyers don't need to know about rape law, for example. I am neither a law student nor a law professor. It's not my lot to tell them how to hash out their conflicts. I think they can come to an agreement that accommodates everyone; for example, exemptions from class for the period where rape law is discussed.
I think universities will survive if they treat their students as worth negotiating with rather than griping in public about how childish their students are. I went to university. I know how condescending professors can be. I think it's reasonable to infer that this recent spate of public griping stems from anxiety, because authority that is challenged always feels anxious.
The attitude of the prof you are detecting might be as you say. However, the "infantilization" described in the article (if indeed real) does not necessarily signal that students are gaining more power in matters of importance, it could even hint at the opposite. Think of how some companies offer foosball tables and allow all sorts of goofiness instead of money/stake in the company/vacation, etc.
I think this is a good observation. I would much, much prefer students to be radical than simply to bargain with the powers that be. Universities are transforming at breathtaking speed in how they are organized and commodified. Professors are losing not only their authority, but their leadership as educators. I would not mind the end of authority, but universities being led by profit and administration is bad, too. The only reasonable course is for students and professors to radicalize and support each other, and for the role of professors to be based on natural leadership, not on power established through hierarchy (the enforcement of which always reduces to implied violence).
But I think that's out of scope.
But I think that's out of scope.
Maybe we have overcorrected but things were pretty shitty back in the author's day. In the 90's, awful comments against gays and Asian people appeared often as "jokes" in mainstream media. And media guides how people act.
I don't like the term micro-aggressions. It should just be called tactlessness or rudeness. For example, coworkers at my last job made jokes about cops pulling over and harassing in front of black employees. Best case that's insensitive. Worst case that's some dogwhistle bullshit.
On the flip side, people got reported to HR for saying the "s" word. Yes, shit. I think the line is somewhere in the middle. All of us need to be a little bit more aware and a little bit less touchy.
I don't like the term micro-aggressions. It should just be called tactlessness or rudeness. For example, coworkers at my last job made jokes about cops pulling over and harassing in front of black employees. Best case that's insensitive. Worst case that's some dogwhistle bullshit.
On the flip side, people got reported to HR for saying the "s" word. Yes, shit. I think the line is somewhere in the middle. All of us need to be a little bit more aware and a little bit less touchy.
I've heard the word "gay" used as an insulting term at my job a few times now in the last 6 months. The last time I heard that was...online from 13 year olds playing Call of Duty. It's definitely nice to be in environments where all these racist, homophobic terms and insults and "jokes" are no longer around.
The article was really about much more benign PC stuff like:
> by some campus guidelines, it is a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American “Where were you born?,” because this implies that he or she is not a real American.
Some Asians would find this policy racist as it presumes that all Asians are American Asian.
> by some campus guidelines, it is a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American “Where were you born?,” because this implies that he or she is not a real American.
Some Asians would find this policy racist as it presumes that all Asians are American Asian.
You are right, some of his points are over-corrections to the less harmful things. He doesn't recognize that most of the polices are not in place to just fix the smaller stuff. I don't think we should coddle our students either but there are definitely a lot of shitty behavior on campus.
For example, look at these black face parties.
http://www.thegloss.com/2014/10/17/culture/dear-white-people...
As for "where were you born", that's a long discussion. But I do want to say as an Asian American, I'm okay with it sometimes and sometimes not. Some people are curious, while others genuinely think I must be a foreigner. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive but it's hard not to be when I live in a country when co workers randomly ask me questions about chopsticks and internment camps.
For example, look at these black face parties.
http://www.thegloss.com/2014/10/17/culture/dear-white-people...
As for "where were you born", that's a long discussion. But I do want to say as an Asian American, I'm okay with it sometimes and sometimes not. Some people are curious, while others genuinely think I must be a foreigner. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive but it's hard not to be when I live in a country when co workers randomly ask me questions about chopsticks and internment camps.
There "where were you born" question strikes me as the kind of thing that's at a minimum pretty tasteless just by the nature of the question.
If someone asks where you're from, they're probably curious about your background. If somebody asks where you were born, either they're implying you're not really a proper resident of where you prefer to live (whether that's a racial thing or a "somebody who moves to New York can't be a real New Yorker thing"), or they're being creepy by asking the kinds of things that get used as bank security questions.
If someone asks where you're from, they're probably curious about your background. If somebody asks where you were born, either they're implying you're not really a proper resident of where you prefer to live (whether that's a racial thing or a "somebody who moves to New York can't be a real New Yorker thing"), or they're being creepy by asking the kinds of things that get used as bank security questions.
The "where are you from" question by itself is innocent, but becomes a microaggression when the asker refuses to take an American location as an answer (assuming US for simplicity). Then you get "No, where are you really from?" This implies that the POC, however much they talk, dress, and act like an American, cannot ever be a "genuine" American.
"What ethnicity are you" or "What is your heritage" are better phrasings of the question of ethnic background.
"What ethnicity are you" or "What is your heritage" are better phrasings of the question of ethnic background.
The question "Where are you really from?" is equivalent to the questions "What ethnicity are you" or "What is your heritage" - the speaker is asking for the exact same information, and one must be really stupid not to get that.
[deleted]
> I'm okay with it sometimes and sometimes not. Some people are curious, while others genuinely think I must be a foreigner.
What's wrong with people genuinely thinking that you're a foreigner? Personally, I would consider it offensive if people would assume I'm not a foreigner somewhere where I looked unlike most other people. But then again, I'm from a non-English-speaking country, so by assuming someone is a foreigner, you're preemptively extending them the courtesy of communicating in English with them.
What's wrong with people genuinely thinking that you're a foreigner? Personally, I would consider it offensive if people would assume I'm not a foreigner somewhere where I looked unlike most other people. But then again, I'm from a non-English-speaking country, so by assuming someone is a foreigner, you're preemptively extending them the courtesy of communicating in English with them.
[deleted]
The author of this post seems to be on another planet. For example, the "play, dog, music, and other therapy" that he is disapproves of comprises maybe 0.05% of the experience of final exams for students (that is, a student might stop to pet a puppy for 5 minutes at some point during finals). The rest of the experience is almost entirely unchanged. He paints it as if it comprises 50% of the experience, like students look forward to exams so they can pet puppies.
It's a growing trend though. Plus, based on news accounts, these are the vocal minority groups that affect a great deal of people's day-to-day campus life. For instance, they chase off speakers that don't care to hear nor want anyone else to hear.
The only trend that seems to really be growing to me is the willingness of people to sympathize with marginalized groups of people. This is not based on some out-there notions that all people should be comfortable all the time. An idea like that would never survive, except in the minds of a small number of extremeists. The overall trend, toward a society that is more willing to make accommodations for those who need them most, is actually positive. You won't see people who write these sorts of articles praising the big picture though. They are only interested in criticizing cases where it goes too far, but people taking an idea too far is not a new phenomenon. As people learn to grapple with changing social norms, I don't see any reason to think that cases like these will tend to go away, and we will be left with positive change.
Exactly. I'm 30, and I'm heartened by the idea of the next generation coming up with a culture that's more compassionate towards people who are different from them in various ways. For people in the HN demographic, behaving with compassion is clearly an inconvenience.
That's a mighty broad brush you have there. I, for one, do not know the many people on HN nor do I claim to know their thoughts and feelings on different matters. I guess I'll refer to you when a question like that comes up in the future.
Anyway, I too like the idea of younger generations growing up with more compassion towards people that are different. I raise my children with that in mind, believe it or not. But what much of what we're seeing coming out of college campuses in the US is not something I want my children to learn. I won't raise them as perpetual victims offended at anything and everything and I sure won't raise them to be unable to deal with an opposing viewpoint without falling back on a shut down the discussion mentality. Which is what the author is actually complaining about in the article.
Anyway, I too like the idea of younger generations growing up with more compassion towards people that are different. I raise my children with that in mind, believe it or not. But what much of what we're seeing coming out of college campuses in the US is not something I want my children to learn. I won't raise them as perpetual victims offended at anything and everything and I sure won't raise them to be unable to deal with an opposing viewpoint without falling back on a shut down the discussion mentality. Which is what the author is actually complaining about in the article.
Some opinions aren't worth having a discussion about. If someone says that "all fags should be rounded up and shot" there's nothing discussion worthy there. A rape survivor is under no obligation to have a discussion with someone who says "all rape victims deserve it, or are liars, or both."
These are extreme examples to be sure, but the principle remains.
And nobody is saying "you can't say 'all fags should be shot.'" They're saying 'You can't say it _here_." Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard.
These are extreme examples to be sure, but the principle remains.
And nobody is saying "you can't say 'all fags should be shot.'" They're saying 'You can't say it _here_." Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard.
Using extreme examples does not prove a point. Especially when one of them advocates criminal violence.
Saying I don't want to hear what you have to say and actively preventing speech are two completely different things. If a group of students don't want to hear a speaker, they have the right to not show up. They don't have the right to prevent the speech from happening. I don't know if you intended it, but your response is an effort to change the context of what I stated.
"Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard" is what people actively preventing free speech fall back on to justify their actions against the speaker. Not that I'm lumping you in with that way of thinking, just pointing it out.
Saying I don't want to hear what you have to say and actively preventing speech are two completely different things. If a group of students don't want to hear a speaker, they have the right to not show up. They don't have the right to prevent the speech from happening. I don't know if you intended it, but your response is an effort to change the context of what I stated.
"Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard" is what people actively preventing free speech fall back on to justify their actions against the speaker. Not that I'm lumping you in with that way of thinking, just pointing it out.
> If someone says that "all fags should be rounded up and shot" there's nothing discussion worthy there.
Actually, I believe that by discussing the statement you're much more likely to change the person's opinion or open up their empathic capabilities than by being an intolerant asshole and attacking them verbally.
Actually, I believe that by discussing the statement you're much more likely to change the person's opinion or open up their empathic capabilities than by being an intolerant asshole and attacking them verbally.
I don't believe you can really know whats coming out of college campuses in the US, other than some opinions viewed through the lens of these few professors who are pointing out outliers. You're getting the same grossly unbalanced viewpoint that would tell you that murders and rapes and child molestations are rampant if you viewed it through the lens of local or national news. Colleges are much more diverse than that, and people learn all sorts of opinions. The "over-victimhood" issue is something they'll encounter but don't think for a second that its the majority viewpoint. People are simply more sensitive now towards other people's struggles, and a natural overextension of that is the protectionism of perceived victims by shutting out perceived perpetrators, which simply does not have legs long term.
Those few professors, the media, and the groups themselves say different. Thankfully colleges are very diverse. But like I said, this appears to be a growing trend that has affected real people beyond their feelings in college. I'm talking real long-term lasting effects that can ruin a person's life. I would say that this thing has been growing long enough that so far it seems to have quite strong legs in the long term since we've been dealing with political correctness since the early nineties at least.
I honestly disagree - to me it fits too cleanly into the narrative that millennials are all coddled children who whine about everything which has been pushed for the past 15 years. The problem is of course, that depending on where you stand in relation to the issue and the people involved you can get completely different perspectives than someone else and both be correct from a particular point of view.
I don't believe I said anything about people wanting to sympathize with and support marginalized groups. I say power to them.
Where I draw the line is groups of people deciding not just for themselves but for everyone else what free expression and free speech means. Which is the group I described. This is the growing trend that I'm speaking of, which you seem to think is something to dismiss. I say you should pay attention to them because history shows that this is the type of people who do the most harm to the previously mentioned marginalized groups under the guise of bettering humanity.
Where I draw the line is groups of people deciding not just for themselves but for everyone else what free expression and free speech means. Which is the group I described. This is the growing trend that I'm speaking of, which you seem to think is something to dismiss. I say you should pay attention to them because history shows that this is the type of people who do the most harm to the previously mentioned marginalized groups under the guise of bettering humanity.
I understand where you're coming from, but I feel like the situation is basically how taurath described it. A lot of people buy into these narratives that make it seem like this is an issue of free speech vs. not being offended. In my own experience, as someone who recently graduated college, this is not what is happening in reality. I have never met someone who actually could be said to be against free speech in any meaningful way. I agree that there are specific cases of people getting way too carried away, but when you take these cases to be at all representative of the reasonable opinions of the other 99.9% of college students, then 99.9% of college students are going to get annoyed with you. I don't see any reason to believe that the people who take it too far are really being taken seriously by people (except by people who disagree with them), and so I don't really see why we should give them so much attention. The only function it serves is to misrepresent and distract from valid points raised by others. By all means tell me if you think I'm missing something.
I'm really hopeful that you are right. I admit I'm more of the type that will be willing to step up early, maybe too early, to prevent things I see as wrong. In the end, if you are right and my concern is not warranted then that's fine. It'll all work out in the end.
My concern is rooted in the thought we've been having to deal with this nonsense since the 90s and it only seems to be growing. Obviously it's a slow trend but most things spread slowly. The thought process at play has already made for hard times for people in and out of college.
By the way, your response has been the most reasonable I've received in this thread. Thank you.
My concern is rooted in the thought we've been having to deal with this nonsense since the 90s and it only seems to be growing. Obviously it's a slow trend but most things spread slowly. The thought process at play has already made for hard times for people in and out of college.
By the way, your response has been the most reasonable I've received in this thread. Thank you.
If this is a real problem, addressing it at the college level seems far, far too late. Also, while the author hammers on their point that "education is not trauma", I am not inclined to agree without giving it more thought.
All I have is anecdotes but they are troubling. A couple of weeks ago I spoke with a second grader who was brought to tears at the thought of upcoming testing (state required assessment). My immediate thought was something along the lines of "Just do the best you can", but the question remains: where was this anxiety coming from: parents, teachers, both? In this case, education was very clearly trauma for this individual.
Perhaps the "helicopter parents" are doing more harm than good, that seems likely. At the same time, perhaps round after round of assessment testing is hurting as well. And universities seeking to coddle their students, perhaps to keep them "happy customers" but also to keep them ignorant of their overall costs.
In any case, it's not entirely clear that "education is not trauma", this article itself seems to contradict that thesis.
All I have is anecdotes but they are troubling. A couple of weeks ago I spoke with a second grader who was brought to tears at the thought of upcoming testing (state required assessment). My immediate thought was something along the lines of "Just do the best you can", but the question remains: where was this anxiety coming from: parents, teachers, both? In this case, education was very clearly trauma for this individual.
Perhaps the "helicopter parents" are doing more harm than good, that seems likely. At the same time, perhaps round after round of assessment testing is hurting as well. And universities seeking to coddle their students, perhaps to keep them "happy customers" but also to keep them ignorant of their overall costs.
In any case, it's not entirely clear that "education is not trauma", this article itself seems to contradict that thesis.
Education absolutely is trauma in a hierarchical society. The whole point of education is to beat children into the mold that fits society's expectations and needs, not their own. You can't expect anything else out of institutions based on domination and authority.
> Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. They also need to keep them fed, and as far as possible prevent them from killing one another. Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it.
> In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something. But beyond that they didn't want to have too much to do with the kids. Like prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric.
- Paul Graham, Why Nerds are Unpopular
> Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. They also need to keep them fed, and as far as possible prevent them from killing one another. Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it.
> In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something. But beyond that they didn't want to have too much to do with the kids. Like prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric.
- Paul Graham, Why Nerds are Unpopular
> The whole point of education is to beat children into the mold that fits society's expectations and needs, not their own.
I'm not sure I agree. I think I grew up as an emotionally mature, successful (so far), yet quite unusual person, despite having been schooled for a long time and acing most of the formal requirements of the institutions.
My parents always said, "trust us, you need to go to school" even though I didn't want to (I mean, obviously, I had a computer and games and a compiler!), but now I agree with them - back then, I couldn't imagine the perspective, breath, width, emotional maturity and social development that further years of schooling would give me, and I couldn't appreciate the extent to which schooling, vocation and other long-term choices that we make (or are guided towards) as completely inexperienced adolescents will shape the future 60-80 years of my life (I'm only about 10 years down the road so far, but the signs and directions are much more obvious now).
Sure, some amount of authority is necessary, but that's mainly because people, especially children, will otherwise go for short-term pleasure without thinking about the longer term. But saying that school molds children in any way is quite a stretch in my opinion - a better way of putting it would be that it shows them different possibilities and enables them to be better informed before choosing which direction to take in life.
I'm not sure I agree. I think I grew up as an emotionally mature, successful (so far), yet quite unusual person, despite having been schooled for a long time and acing most of the formal requirements of the institutions.
My parents always said, "trust us, you need to go to school" even though I didn't want to (I mean, obviously, I had a computer and games and a compiler!), but now I agree with them - back then, I couldn't imagine the perspective, breath, width, emotional maturity and social development that further years of schooling would give me, and I couldn't appreciate the extent to which schooling, vocation and other long-term choices that we make (or are guided towards) as completely inexperienced adolescents will shape the future 60-80 years of my life (I'm only about 10 years down the road so far, but the signs and directions are much more obvious now).
Sure, some amount of authority is necessary, but that's mainly because people, especially children, will otherwise go for short-term pleasure without thinking about the longer term. But saying that school molds children in any way is quite a stretch in my opinion - a better way of putting it would be that it shows them different possibilities and enables them to be better informed before choosing which direction to take in life.
Education is not traumatic for people who can cope with failure, but can be devastating for those who have not learned how to deal with. Handling negative emotions like rage, fear, failure, regret, envy or disappointment are basic skills we normally learn as kids through all kinds of positive and negative experiences. By trying different approaches a child can learn e.g. that failing just means you'll need to work more to succeed, instead of more counterproductive defences like sour grapes or that you were cheated.
It is unfortunate that some parents inadvertently hurt their kids by either not allowing them to learn to deal with negative emotions, or even worse, teaching them ideas like "it's okay that you failed the test, I know you did your best"
It is unfortunate that some parents inadvertently hurt their kids by either not allowing them to learn to deal with negative emotions, or even worse, teaching them ideas like "it's okay that you failed the test, I know you did your best"
"“In my day” (I’m old now, my day was the late 80s early 90s), you visited the registrar’s office. A financial aid office. The bursars office. I felt like an adult, making decisions and finding things out for myself… But now there are counsellors for everything. Counsellors. As if the very act of registering for a class is traumatic event for which the student needs counselling. According to some universities, these counsellors provide “customer support”. That’s Ohio State’s term, not mine."
Wow, this feels really out of place. When I was in school from 2006-2011, there was definitively no feelings of being an adult permitted. The university encouraged parents to make any kind of financial aid / money related decisions, and encouraged leaving the students out of it. There were counselors for their use, if they were needed. Definitely agree with the gist of the author. On the other hand, people have been complaining about the weakness of the youth since Socrates, so I'm not sure that this article is signal rather than noise.
As far as exams being stressful, I'd say it's fine to give students a break and let them handle the stress however it helps. For most, it's their first exposure to "serious" evaluation of their work, and it is a bit daunting because their decisions are ineffable once made. Of course, the stress-mitigation strategies that the students learn during this time period are essential to their growth-- this isn't focused on enough, IMO. After being in the workforce for a while, exam time seems more like a vacation from stress rather than a stressful time to me. I wish that I had been able to pet a nice puppy during exam time.
I also wish that there were a "phase 2" of college to be taken after 5-10 years in the workforce. The education of having to provide for yourself imparts a lot of discipline and enthusiasm that I really could have used as a student. I could probably get eight bachelors' degrees in the time it took me to get two the first time around. College was a step in the maturation process for me-- a step that was a bit too small as a result of some of my mother institution's decisions.
In summary, colleges certainly coddle the students, and the students are eager to be coddled. But don't be too bitter: the students deserve their youth, too.
Wow, this feels really out of place. When I was in school from 2006-2011, there was definitively no feelings of being an adult permitted. The university encouraged parents to make any kind of financial aid / money related decisions, and encouraged leaving the students out of it. There were counselors for their use, if they were needed. Definitely agree with the gist of the author. On the other hand, people have been complaining about the weakness of the youth since Socrates, so I'm not sure that this article is signal rather than noise.
As far as exams being stressful, I'd say it's fine to give students a break and let them handle the stress however it helps. For most, it's their first exposure to "serious" evaluation of their work, and it is a bit daunting because their decisions are ineffable once made. Of course, the stress-mitigation strategies that the students learn during this time period are essential to their growth-- this isn't focused on enough, IMO. After being in the workforce for a while, exam time seems more like a vacation from stress rather than a stressful time to me. I wish that I had been able to pet a nice puppy during exam time.
I also wish that there were a "phase 2" of college to be taken after 5-10 years in the workforce. The education of having to provide for yourself imparts a lot of discipline and enthusiasm that I really could have used as a student. I could probably get eight bachelors' degrees in the time it took me to get two the first time around. College was a step in the maturation process for me-- a step that was a bit too small as a result of some of my mother institution's decisions.
In summary, colleges certainly coddle the students, and the students are eager to be coddled. But don't be too bitter: the students deserve their youth, too.
I don't think the author is complaining about the weakness of youth, but rather the weakness of the adults running the asylum.
To be young, IMO, is to question the status quo, be politically active (protest in the streets, if need be), come up with intellectually disruptive ideas, try new things, etc.
The current generation is mostly politically apathetic, obsessing instead over silly things like being offended by law textbooks containing words like "rape" and "violate".
Helicopter parenting is to blame, no question.
The current generation is mostly politically apathetic, obsessing instead over silly things like being offended by law textbooks containing words like "rape" and "violate".
Helicopter parenting is to blame, no question.
> The university encouraged parents to make any kind of financial aid / money related decisions, and encouraged leaving the students out of it.
I wonder if that has more to do with financial/economic changes (rather than cultural ones) particularly when you look at how tuition has changed in terms of amount and how loans are handled and by whom.
I wonder if that has more to do with financial/economic changes (rather than cultural ones) particularly when you look at how tuition has changed in terms of amount and how loans are handled and by whom.
I was disillusioned with the college experience almost as soon as I began. I started college in 2007 after ~14 months deployed to Iraq, so it was a significant culture shock to be dropped into such a coddling environment.
Having to talk to three different people, and sit down for meetings, just to get the authorization to schedule my classes drove me crazy, while wasting time with mandatory "awareness" (alcohol, sex, whatever) classes made me question the point of it all.
In the end I chalked it all up to me being a bitter old 21 year old freshman, and took the opportunity to talk my way out of as many silly requirements as I could.
I do feel a bit vindicated seeing others take notice of how emotionally vulnerable college students have let themselves become, but I still hope there is a solution which fosters an environment of growth and challenge without going too far in either direction.
Having to talk to three different people, and sit down for meetings, just to get the authorization to schedule my classes drove me crazy, while wasting time with mandatory "awareness" (alcohol, sex, whatever) classes made me question the point of it all.
In the end I chalked it all up to me being a bitter old 21 year old freshman, and took the opportunity to talk my way out of as many silly requirements as I could.
I do feel a bit vindicated seeing others take notice of how emotionally vulnerable college students have let themselves become, but I still hope there is a solution which fosters an environment of growth and challenge without going too far in either direction.
"They nap in the library or in the hallway of academic buildings during normal work hours."
Wimps! In my day you sat in the back row of the classroom and slept while the lecture went on.
Wimps! In my day you sat in the back row of the classroom and slept while the lecture went on.
I was once voted class representative because I happened to fall asleep at the front while it was being decided.
As the author of the original post, I do want to say that I'm not opposed to accommodations and work hard to make sure students are able to master the content in my courses. I'm cool with puppy rooms even... I wrote this as a morning rant. These are just my observations as a mid career professional. There is just so much of this. The crux of the problem, if there is one, is the corporatization of the university experience. I wrote an earlier post about grade inflation that touched on this too...
The university itself is a massive infantilization, evolved primarily to financially exploit young adults.
Does anybody really think that smart young adults could not maximize their potential out in the real world earning actual money, learning on the go.
The university rips young people out of reality for four more years to pamper them like babies and deprive them of reality in the name of "education"; as if listening to lectures from middle aged adults has some sort of magical revelatory power that living life does not.
Does anybody really think that smart young adults could not maximize their potential out in the real world earning actual money, learning on the go.
The university rips young people out of reality for four more years to pamper them like babies and deprive them of reality in the name of "education"; as if listening to lectures from middle aged adults has some sort of magical revelatory power that living life does not.
It gives you a chance to develop your mind and opportunity to reach jobs that a regular high school education does not prepare you for.
The only jobs you need a college education are the ones that are highly technical, leaning towards Academia.
Most engineers and analysts could learn on the job or with specializations(no longer than a few months).
Most engineers and analysts could learn on the job or with specializations(no longer than a few months).
Or, we could take women and minority students at their word about the stuff they find offensive and hurtful and treat them with a little respect.
Oh, wait, that's too much work. They're just a bunch of whiners.
Edit: Not sure if the downvotes are because people don't get this was sarcastic, or if people do.
Either way: Try listening to the people complaining instead of just brushing them off as "whiners". I hope that clears things up.
Oh, wait, that's too much work. They're just a bunch of whiners.
Edit: Not sure if the downvotes are because people don't get this was sarcastic, or if people do.
Either way: Try listening to the people complaining instead of just brushing them off as "whiners". I hope that clears things up.
Sarcasm is best avoided online, the subtle intonations in voice are completely lost with text.
That said, there is a clarification in the article that does need to be stated. The prof is not against rape, racism, sexism, PTSD counseling, etc. Rather, they are just a new person in a long line of fuddy-duddys complaining about the youth of today. I believe the prof's gripe was against the perceived laze or lack of courage that their student's exhibit. I think this comment in particular should be expanded on by the prof:
..Most disabilities that I am asked to accommodate seem to be unspecified and are remedied by providing the students with a separate, quiet location and an extra 30 minutes to take an exam.
If the prof can start to gather some stats on that and make a real case that the students are abusing these privileges, then some change may be possible. Until then, the prof is just another old man complaining about kids on their lawn.
That said, there is a clarification in the article that does need to be stated. The prof is not against rape, racism, sexism, PTSD counseling, etc. Rather, they are just a new person in a long line of fuddy-duddys complaining about the youth of today. I believe the prof's gripe was against the perceived laze or lack of courage that their student's exhibit. I think this comment in particular should be expanded on by the prof:
..Most disabilities that I am asked to accommodate seem to be unspecified and are remedied by providing the students with a separate, quiet location and an extra 30 minutes to take an exam.
If the prof can start to gather some stats on that and make a real case that the students are abusing these privileges, then some change may be possible. Until then, the prof is just another old man complaining about kids on their lawn.
It's not that they are whiners. I'm a whiner. I complain about things that I find to be deplorable all the time.
But I also think I have a reasonable conception of what deplorableness is. And that includes persecution of nonbelievers for suspicion of heresy. Some people have founded a non-theistic religion regarding certain elements of social conduct, and its adherents act rather poorly towards those who do not share their beliefs.
They can believe what they want. But they can't force me to kneel before their altars.
Also, allow me to take a moment to endorse the use of the tilde ('~') as a "sarc mark".
~I'm sure it will catch on any day now.~
But I also think I have a reasonable conception of what deplorableness is. And that includes persecution of nonbelievers for suspicion of heresy. Some people have founded a non-theistic religion regarding certain elements of social conduct, and its adherents act rather poorly towards those who do not share their beliefs.
They can believe what they want. But they can't force me to kneel before their altars.
Also, allow me to take a moment to endorse the use of the tilde ('~') as a "sarc mark".
~I'm sure it will catch on any day now.~
Does it help women if we stop teaching law students about rape law? If you're defending the students in this piece, you're defending ending teaching law altogether as some students are offended by the word 'violation,' as in 'violation of the law.' You're defending infinite stupidity.
And if you can cite a real female law student who is actually offended by the idea of learning about rape law, or even the word "violation," you might possibly have the vaguest sense of something possibly resembling a point if you happen to be looking at it from the right angle.
I don't need to. The article already has. I'm not sure if they're female, but that's irrelevant.
>Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress.
From the OP Article.
So let's take a look at Jeannie Suk's writing [0]
>One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.
And cited a real law student (female or not) who was actually offended by the word "violate" and asked for it to not be used because it was triggering. As well as some students suggesting rape law shouldn't be taught at all.
[0] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap...
From the OP Article.
So let's take a look at Jeannie Suk's writing [0]
>One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.
And cited a real law student (female or not) who was actually offended by the word "violate" and asked for it to not be used because it was triggering. As well as some students suggesting rape law shouldn't be taught at all.
[0] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap...
Okay, so this is one rare example that's actually true.
Let's break the point down a bit. For an actual rape survivor, it's possible the word "violate" might be triggering. If that's the case in that room, then perhaps another word should be used.
As for not teaching rape law, while rape law is something that might be triggering to a victim, this is a rare example where not teaching it, at least if it's a requirement of the program, is a problem. There's a discussion that can occur about the appropriateness of teaching rape law in, say, an introduction to law course at the undergraduate level. Having the discussion is important.
Funny how the people who say that coddled students want to shut down all discussion, only to shut down discussion about what's appropriate to teach in general courses or for a university to endorse.
Let's break the point down a bit. For an actual rape survivor, it's possible the word "violate" might be triggering. If that's the case in that room, then perhaps another word should be used.
As for not teaching rape law, while rape law is something that might be triggering to a victim, this is a rare example where not teaching it, at least if it's a requirement of the program, is a problem. There's a discussion that can occur about the appropriateness of teaching rape law in, say, an introduction to law course at the undergraduate level. Having the discussion is important.
Funny how the people who say that coddled students want to shut down all discussion, only to shut down discussion about what's appropriate to teach in general courses or for a university to endorse.
Apparently at the faculty of medicine in Ljubljana, they show graphic images of surgeries, birth, injuries, blood, etc. when high-school students visit the faculty before they decide what they want to study. I believe the idea is, if you can't handle blood, you probably shouldn't be a doctor.
Similarly, if you can't handle law, you probably shouldn't be a lawyer.
Similarly, if you can't handle law, you probably shouldn't be a lawyer.
[deleted]
Unfortunately, just my being a "white NT cishet male" is offensive to some people. I can neither fix that for them nor take it seriously.
> just my being a "white NT cishet male" is offensive to some people
No, it isn't. They are offended by something else about you.
No, it isn't. They are offended by something else about you.
Yes, it is. There are people who are intrinsically offended by people of all races, and some rationalize it with various collective narratives about power structures. Whether one kvetches about the Zionist Jews or the born-with-original-sin white men, it isn't practically different.
I'm not talking about interactions with individuals. I'm referring to people who post hate speech against members of that group online. It's not directed at me personally. As I was saying, it's bigotry against a group that includes me.
Have you tried not taking crazy people seriously? Stop feeling like a victim.
What you just said is not a real position that anyone has (in large enough numbers to be worth talking about). The part where you don't take people seriously is the thing that is offensive. You might be confused because people talk about white males as being the only people who are in a position to completely ignore the feelings of everyone else if they choose to, as you seem to have chosen to do. But to be clear, it's not racism/sexism directed against you, it's a dislike of something that you specifically do.
That might be true if I was discussin interactions with individuals rather than blanket hate and prejudice on the Internet.
How have I personally offended this person, for instance? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054067/Pictured-Div...
How have I personally offended this person, for instance? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054067/Pictured-Div...
[deleted]
Have you ever thought why that is?
I'm a "white NT cishet male", as well, and at a glance, you can't tell the decent people from the awful ones. It's about behavior, and in a space where most people who look like us act like shit, it's not unreasonable to generalize a lack of trust. It's not on them to be understanding, it's on _us_. because we're in the position of privilege in this situation.
I'm a "white NT cishet male", as well, and at a glance, you can't tell the decent people from the awful ones. It's about behavior, and in a space where most people who look like us act like shit, it's not unreasonable to generalize a lack of trust. It's not on them to be understanding, it's on _us_. because we're in the position of privilege in this situation.
I could say the same about any specific group or class of people, and be a bigot. How horrible would that be considered if I said what you just said about another specific racial group?
So, you cannot possibly offend white males?
In your world, apparently only women and minorities have the right to be offended.
[deleted]
This is not the first post by an actual professor pointing out this phenomenon. I've observed it myself as a professional mentoring college students during internship, but my sample is way smaller than what a professor can see.
It is indeed a real problem. Everyone feels like they are entitled to be not only safe, but also "comfortable" at all time. No matter what. Nobody should judge you, nobody should disagree with you, nobody should make you feel bad about anything. This is a recipe to create highly dysfunctional adults.
Accepting conflicting opinions, facing rejection, standing for yourself without calling a twitter mob to the rescue, not seeking constant validation is part of being a functioning human being.
I'm wondering what is the agenda behind this trend. The author seems to think that it is to make sure students remain babies and stay in college as long as possible to avoid facing the real world. Could it really be something that petty? I started thinking that it could be encouraged by politicians to create a generation of babies that would feel better about dealing with a nanny-state.
It is indeed a real problem. Everyone feels like they are entitled to be not only safe, but also "comfortable" at all time. No matter what. Nobody should judge you, nobody should disagree with you, nobody should make you feel bad about anything. This is a recipe to create highly dysfunctional adults.
Accepting conflicting opinions, facing rejection, standing for yourself without calling a twitter mob to the rescue, not seeking constant validation is part of being a functioning human being.
I'm wondering what is the agenda behind this trend. The author seems to think that it is to make sure students remain babies and stay in college as long as possible to avoid facing the real world. Could it really be something that petty? I started thinking that it could be encouraged by politicians to create a generation of babies that would feel better about dealing with a nanny-state.
I think it's more the inevitable outcome when students and teachers are forced through endless cycles of tests, evaluations and metrics - from primary school onwards.
A well-written paper on this, which I think has been discussed on HN before: http://www.systema-journal.org/article/view/314 (you can get the general idea by skipping the technical parts in Section 3).
If this theory is correct, then it has less to do with the supposed weaknesses of today's students or a deliberate political agenda to keep them from growing up - instead it's an unintended consequence of the idea that everything must be subjected to constant "scientific" numerical evaluation.
A well-written paper on this, which I think has been discussed on HN before: http://www.systema-journal.org/article/view/314 (you can get the general idea by skipping the technical parts in Section 3).
If this theory is correct, then it has less to do with the supposed weaknesses of today's students or a deliberate political agenda to keep them from growing up - instead it's an unintended consequence of the idea that everything must be subjected to constant "scientific" numerical evaluation.
See also "I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me" (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid) from just a few months ago.
I guess downvoters took my post as a micro-aggression :) Sorry I made you feel uncomfortable...
If I had to guess, I'd say you're being downvoted for the completely unnecessary "nanny-state" remark at the end.
How is it unnecessary? This is a real theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state). The term may seem pejorative, but it is a real agenda pushed by some parties/groups.
I'm not saying the US currently has a nanny-state (far from it compared to what is implemented in Europe for example), but this could be a real agenda.
I'm not saying the US currently has a nanny-state (far from it compared to what is implemented in Europe for example), but this could be a real agenda.
>How is it unnecessary? This is a real theory
Well, the way you put it does sound like a conspiracy theory:
>I'm wondering what is the agenda behind this trend. The author seems to think that it is to make sure students remain babies and stay in college as long as possible to avoid facing the real world. Could it really be something that petty? I started thinking that it could be encouraged by politicians to create a generation of babies that would feel better about dealing with a nanny-state.
fwiw, I live in a country that probably would be classified as a nanny state, and the same dynamics are very well present here, too. My personal theory is that it's far more complicated.
Well, the way you put it does sound like a conspiracy theory:
>I'm wondering what is the agenda behind this trend. The author seems to think that it is to make sure students remain babies and stay in college as long as possible to avoid facing the real world. Could it really be something that petty? I started thinking that it could be encouraged by politicians to create a generation of babies that would feel better about dealing with a nanny-state.
fwiw, I live in a country that probably would be classified as a nanny state, and the same dynamics are very well present here, too. My personal theory is that it's far more complicated.
It depends on what you mean by conspiracy theory. I don't believe there is some evil Blofeld patting the cat and pulling strings. I do however believe that the ruling class is trying to remain in control of the oligarchy, and I do believe that they have enough power today to drive major political decisions, including society changes.
So yes, I do believe that if it is true that student infantilization is trending and institutionalized it's because the ruling class can get some benefits out of it.
I'm perfectly ready to admit that I'm paranoid :)
So yes, I do believe that if it is true that student infantilization is trending and institutionalized it's because the ruling class can get some benefits out of it.
I'm perfectly ready to admit that I'm paranoid :)
Yeah, I don't know why you were downvoted so hard. Maybe the HN mob mentality just sides with the Uni students on this one, and they don't like being exposed to your differing opinions. ;)
You'll notice that this kind of thing only happens in groups where people can support each other's ideas, regardless of how ridiculous. Tea Partiers who scream about getting rid of immigrants. Green Peace activists who scream about getting rid of all uses of oil. Vegans who scream when someone cooks meat near them. Non-smokers who scream if they have to inhale cigarette smoke for 10 seconds.
There's always an in-group that validates perceived threats to the individual and amplifies the concern and the response until it reaches a fever pitch, and it remains there as long as the support base is there.
If it weren't for the fact that somebody has to pay their salaries, professors could ignore this behavior. Sadly, the academics are going to have to bend if they want to keep their jobs. It's the same in every other subculture; the mob gets their way as long as you are beholden to them for something.
There's always an in-group that validates perceived threats to the individual and amplifies the concern and the response until it reaches a fever pitch, and it remains there as long as the support base is there.
If it weren't for the fact that somebody has to pay their salaries, professors could ignore this behavior. Sadly, the academics are going to have to bend if they want to keep their jobs. It's the same in every other subculture; the mob gets their way as long as you are beholden to them for something.
Whenever someone makes a point by listing groups of people, they always have to sneak in a pet issue. Looks like for you it's smoking!
You say "non-smokers" but you mean "normal, default people." Smokers are the delusional in-group, slowly murdering themselves and those around them with a remarkably unfun drug. You're welcome to do whatever you want to your own body but keep it away from others. Imagine what you just said, applied to any other substance! Non-drinkers who have to drink my beer for 10 seconds? Celiac-diseasers who have to eat my bread for 10 seconds?
You say "non-smokers" but you mean "normal, default people." Smokers are the delusional in-group, slowly murdering themselves and those around them with a remarkably unfun drug. You're welcome to do whatever you want to your own body but keep it away from others. Imagine what you just said, applied to any other substance! Non-drinkers who have to drink my beer for 10 seconds? Celiac-diseasers who have to eat my bread for 10 seconds?
Well no, I don't have a "pet issue". And it's ridiculous to compare inhaling cigarette smoke to pouring beer down someone's throat or feeding gluten to a gluten-intolerant person. They're all wildly different examples with completely different consequences.
If you force beer down an alcoholic's throat they may relapse. If they're gluten-intolerant they could have a severe reaction. And obviously feeding bread to a gluten-intolerant person will have a serious negative reaction. Inhaling cigarette smoke isn't going to put you in the hospital or send you on a cigarette-smoking binge, nor affect your health any worse than walking around downtown LA would.
If you force beer down an alcoholic's throat they may relapse. If they're gluten-intolerant they could have a severe reaction. And obviously feeding bread to a gluten-intolerant person will have a serious negative reaction. Inhaling cigarette smoke isn't going to put you in the hospital or send you on a cigarette-smoking binge, nor affect your health any worse than walking around downtown LA would.
" My university, like most, has offices for diversity, indigenous student support, sexual orientation, even a mental health office specifically for international students, etc. As a professor, I am frequently asked to make academic accommodations for every religion and every possible religious holiday that might conflict with assignment. I must ensure that every every disability is accommodated. Most disabilities that I am asked to accommodate seem to be unspecified and are remedied by providing the students with a separate, quiet location and an extra 30 minutes to take an exam.
“In my day” (I’m old now, my day was the late 80s early 90s), you visited the registrar’s office. A financial aid office. The bursars office. I felt like an adult, making decisions and finding things out for myself… But now there are counsellors for everything."
I can only imagine how frustrating it is when minority, non-straight, disabled, non-dudes explain the challenges the face that maybe straight white dudes haven't experienced, only to have those straight white dudes write articles like this completely dismissing all of that after basically not listening. Yeah, I'm sure things were just swell for you back "in your day". But has it occurred to you that it was less swell for other people in ways that should be addressed? It certainly doesn't seem to have for this author.
Also, in the above quote, it seems like he resisted a pretty strong urge to put scare quotes around "disabilities". Because there's no way to tell when these people have not immediately-visible disabilities, except for when they're literally fucking telling you.
There might be kernels of legitimate concerns in this post. But, like in the many basically-identical blog posts and comments written by many, it's all rolled into an incoherent mash of "College kids today, they can't take a joke, with their trigger warnings and talk about microaggressions, their `disabilities' and whatnot. They need to toughen up, because back in my day we didn't need puppies."
“In my day” (I’m old now, my day was the late 80s early 90s), you visited the registrar’s office. A financial aid office. The bursars office. I felt like an adult, making decisions and finding things out for myself… But now there are counsellors for everything."
I can only imagine how frustrating it is when minority, non-straight, disabled, non-dudes explain the challenges the face that maybe straight white dudes haven't experienced, only to have those straight white dudes write articles like this completely dismissing all of that after basically not listening. Yeah, I'm sure things were just swell for you back "in your day". But has it occurred to you that it was less swell for other people in ways that should be addressed? It certainly doesn't seem to have for this author.
Also, in the above quote, it seems like he resisted a pretty strong urge to put scare quotes around "disabilities". Because there's no way to tell when these people have not immediately-visible disabilities, except for when they're literally fucking telling you.
There might be kernels of legitimate concerns in this post. But, like in the many basically-identical blog posts and comments written by many, it's all rolled into an incoherent mash of "College kids today, they can't take a joke, with their trigger warnings and talk about microaggressions, their `disabilities' and whatnot. They need to toughen up, because back in my day we didn't need puppies."
I think part of the problem is culture has changed. A joke that is racist or homophobic that would have been considered hilarious 30 - 40 years ago may simply not considered all that funny anymore. It may still be that PC culture is going too far, but I think it's not the whole story
He repeats the phase that college is not trauma but ignores that during the college phase of young adult lives many mental health issues arise in an environment without the only support system a child usually knows, their family.
Suicide is the leading cause of death[1] for college students and this guy is going to criticize the addition of resources to help handle stress? It just reads like ignorance.
1: http://news.virginia.edu/content/more-us-college-students-di...
Suicide is the leading cause of death[1] for college students and this guy is going to criticize the addition of resources to help handle stress? It just reads like ignorance.
1: http://news.virginia.edu/content/more-us-college-students-di...
Funny, I didn't read anything in the article about him complaining over suicide prevention counseling. I believe you are taking what he's saying and pushing too far to prove some point that no one brought up.
Some of the measures the OP is railing against can help stop students from needing suicide prevention counseling, counseling which is not 100% successful. If we can help reduce the number of students who even contemplate suicide, I'd say that's a noble goal.
And I personally think the point is very relevant. OP says students are coddled and campus stress isn't a big deal. GP brings up statistics showing that campus stress IS a big deal because it can lead to suicide. Seem very relevant to me.
And I personally think the point is very relevant. OP says students are coddled and campus stress isn't a big deal. GP brings up statistics showing that campus stress IS a big deal because it can lead to suicide. Seem very relevant to me.
"Some of the measures?", which proves my point. Instead of hearing the message some people choose to just complain. Yes, college can be stressful. Life can be stressful. Previous generations of college students did not require counseling for nearly every single aspect of college life, which is what the author is actually railing against and not "some" of the measures. I fail to see the author calling for measures that will increase suicide in college students. You are debating a point no one made.
>Previous generations of college students did not require counseling for nearly every single aspect of college life
Well, actually they probably did. That's why we have all these statistics telling us how many kids in college kill themselves. Because they needed those things.
Well, actually they probably did. That's why we have all these statistics telling us how many kids in college kill themselves. Because they needed those things.
See, I like how far off track this discussion has gotten from the author's complaint. Let's needle one little aspect of the guy's message, that he didn't even bring up, so we can decide he's wrong overall. Right?
There are many reasons for one to go the route of suicide, and in many cases no degree of counseling would help. But, for counseling to help it needs to address the root causes of the problem for that person, which may be unique to that person. Almost all of the programs the author is complaining about will not address that in any way. Especially the programs that don't even involve much stress to begin with.
As for suicide rates, I'm curious as to how far off the statistics you are referring to are from the national average. Personally, right now, I'm more concerned over the suicide rates of soldiers.
There are many reasons for one to go the route of suicide, and in many cases no degree of counseling would help. But, for counseling to help it needs to address the root causes of the problem for that person, which may be unique to that person. Almost all of the programs the author is complaining about will not address that in any way. Especially the programs that don't even involve much stress to begin with.
As for suicide rates, I'm curious as to how far off the statistics you are referring to are from the national average. Personally, right now, I'm more concerned over the suicide rates of soldiers.
I'm talking about mental health, with one of the most tragic outcomes being suicide.
> in many cases no degree of counseling would help
In many cases? Really?
> for counseling to help it needs to address the root causes of the problem for that person,
That just isn't true. There are cognitive, behavioral and a combination of both that help people all the time. Therapy that focuses on changing behavior patterns (ie CBT) and not on your root causes are often most effective. Many therapists also use therapy dogs because they're so effective, something this guy railed against like it was turning students into children.
> I'm more concerned over the suicide rates of soldiers.
How is that related?
> in many cases no degree of counseling would help
In many cases? Really?
> for counseling to help it needs to address the root causes of the problem for that person,
That just isn't true. There are cognitive, behavioral and a combination of both that help people all the time. Therapy that focuses on changing behavior patterns (ie CBT) and not on your root causes are often most effective. Many therapists also use therapy dogs because they're so effective, something this guy railed against like it was turning students into children.
> I'm more concerned over the suicide rates of soldiers.
How is that related?
In many cases, yes. Otherwise it implies that no one in counseling ever commits suicide. It happens. Ignoring that helps nothing. Notice that I said many, not all nor most, but you put extra focus on it as if I did.
It is true, but I'll admit it's not true for everyone. People's reasons for suicide can be quite complex and often times no one but the person knows or understands the reasoning. To change behaviors without addressing the root causes of the behavior provides the possibility of the behavior returning. It's much the same with alcoholism and drug addiction.
How is this discussion related to the original article that didn't bring this subject matter up? It's related because suicide rates came up in the discussion and I stated that I'm personally more worried over soldiers returning from war who receive next to no help versus students who agonize getting counseling over what classes they should take next semester. If a student is depressed and considering suicide because they feel they are failing themselves, their parents, or whatever to the point of considering suicide, then I want help available for them. But then, no one here has said anything about being against that, right?
It is true, but I'll admit it's not true for everyone. People's reasons for suicide can be quite complex and often times no one but the person knows or understands the reasoning. To change behaviors without addressing the root causes of the behavior provides the possibility of the behavior returning. It's much the same with alcoholism and drug addiction.
How is this discussion related to the original article that didn't bring this subject matter up? It's related because suicide rates came up in the discussion and I stated that I'm personally more worried over soldiers returning from war who receive next to no help versus students who agonize getting counseling over what classes they should take next semester. If a student is depressed and considering suicide because they feel they are failing themselves, their parents, or whatever to the point of considering suicide, then I want help available for them. But then, no one here has said anything about being against that, right?
Suicide prevention counselling should be one of the last lines of defence, not the first.
Reducing stress is an overall better policy, as long as it doesn't get in the way of receiving an actual education. I think that's an important conversation to have.
Reducing stress is an overall better policy, as long as it doesn't get in the way of receiving an actual education. I think that's an important conversation to have.
I believe that the message the author was trying to give was that in his opinion the coddling of the students or counseling for almost every aspect of college life is detrimental to the educational goals of the student and their future. But some people just want to debate points that no one brought up. This is an attempt to change his message from "I think we're coddling students too much" to "I want to get rid of programs that prevent student suicide.", which is simply a ridiculous accusation.
Why do so many people feel the need to redefine people's words/thoughts and dictate what they mean?
Why do so many people feel the need to redefine people's words/thoughts and dictate what they mean?
Ignoring suicide, I think there is still value in reducing needless stress so students can focus on learning.
My college doesn't have counselors, and I wish it had,if only to help me navigate the stupid bureaucracy that adults insist anyone should be able to navigate.
Instead, I find myself more comfortable and less stressed at my actual job, so it's not just that I'm "coddled", or that I expect to be sheltered from how the real world works.
My college doesn't have counselors, and I wish it had,if only to help me navigate the stupid bureaucracy that adults insist anyone should be able to navigate.
Instead, I find myself more comfortable and less stressed at my actual job, so it's not just that I'm "coddled", or that I expect to be sheltered from how the real world works.
Maybe the solution is to determine what is causing the symptoms to deal with that instead of treating them with counselors for everything. If it's determined that counselors is the way to go for the root cause, then by all means let's give it a shot. Especially with colleges have nothing in place. But let's not dismiss concerns over too much.
But, I agree, helping students focus more on learning is a good thing. Then again, let's not remove life lessons in the process. Such as dealing with bureaucracy.
But, I agree, helping students focus more on learning is a good thing. Then again, let's not remove life lessons in the process. Such as dealing with bureaucracy.
Not remove. Add.
Think positive. With counselors, and puppies, and trigger warnings and all that silliness, college can be more demanding than it used to be without making people spend what should be their prime years in a state of chronic stress.
Consider what college students of previous generations did to unwind. Was that really better?
Think positive. With counselors, and puppies, and trigger warnings and all that silliness, college can be more demanding than it used to be without making people spend what should be their prime years in a state of chronic stress.
Consider what college students of previous generations did to unwind. Was that really better?
I said "this guy is going to criticize the addition of resources to help handle stress". Not "this guy wants to stop suicide counseling!!!".
You brought up suicide. You even gave a source. If I concluded your intentions incorrectly, I apologize. But then I fail to understand why you brought it up in the first place.
As a data point to support that college is indeed a very stressful environment and deserving of a lot of counseling resources.
It is not something we really consider, but it is worth pointing out: Education IS Trauma. Pedagogy focuses on minimizing the trauma, but learning new things that violate preconceptions is both physically and mentally stressful.
When you challenge somebody's core beliefs, their bodies respond as if you are trying to kill them. Challenging less strongly held beliefs is less stressful.
I'm going into teaching a security class, and this is strongly in my mind. Most people have a lot of strongly held false beliefs about how secure they are, and what the information they do leak could be used for.
When you challenge somebody's core beliefs, their bodies respond as if you are trying to kill them. Challenging less strongly held beliefs is less stressful.
I'm going into teaching a security class, and this is strongly in my mind. Most people have a lot of strongly held false beliefs about how secure they are, and what the information they do leak could be used for.
[deleted]
The biggest error I see in the entire line of argument is that it assumes the author's experience to be generalizable. They might as well have said, "The system worked well for me. I didn't need any of these changes that are happening, so we should stop them. They're weakening our children because reasons." I can't take any of this seriously without any data to show there is a problem and not just complaints that amount to "I don't like how PC students are today."
>As if the very act of registering for a class is traumatic event for which the student needs counselling.
Clearly the author didn't go to a high-demand program at an impacted state school. "If you don't register for 12 units, your financial aid package will be revoked and you'll have to reapply for admission next term." Field Sciences, here I come! (True story.)
>As if the very act of registering for a class is traumatic event for which the student needs counselling.
Clearly the author didn't go to a high-demand program at an impacted state school. "If you don't register for 12 units, your financial aid package will be revoked and you'll have to reapply for admission next term." Field Sciences, here I come! (True story.)
On the matter of microaggressions I think the author doesn't use good examples for them.
For example, telling someone they speak good English in a situation where you're both native speakers is a microaggression. Asking where they're from or where they grew up isn't a microaggression.
Another good example of a microaggression would be to ask someone if their hair is natural (as I've seen commonly asked of African American women). Or if you're transgender (like myself) the common microaggression is to ask for one's "real" name (as if the legally designated name isn't sufficient).
It's not much to ask to figure out what is and isn't a microaggression, really. I hate the word since it doesn't best describe the behavior but the nature of it is very real.
For example, telling someone they speak good English in a situation where you're both native speakers is a microaggression. Asking where they're from or where they grew up isn't a microaggression.
Another good example of a microaggression would be to ask someone if their hair is natural (as I've seen commonly asked of African American women). Or if you're transgender (like myself) the common microaggression is to ask for one's "real" name (as if the legally designated name isn't sufficient).
It's not much to ask to figure out what is and isn't a microaggression, really. I hate the word since it doesn't best describe the behavior but the nature of it is very real.
Having to change academic material that isn't overtly racist/homophobic/xenophobic/transphobic/etc because students feel uncomfortable about it seems silly, but I don't think there's anything wrong with a student bringing up (respectfully) why something makes them uncomfortable within the class, especially in a diverse environment with students from all over the world.
I don't think that's necessarily what the author is talking about. However, this part in particular was troubling:
"Then there are offices to help students with anything that could possibly upset them (I suppose to ensure that they remain enrolled snd thus paying fees and tuition). My university, like most, has offices for diversity, indigenous student support, sexual orientation, even a mental health office specifically for international students, etc. As a professor, I am frequently asked to make academic accommodations for every religion and every possible religious holiday that might conflict with assignment. I must ensure that every every disability is accommodated."
What's wrong with providing institutional support to students with different backgrounds and disabilities? Complaining about student support groups, accommodating disabilities or recognizing non-Christian religious holidays is a a bit over the top. It's anecdotal, but I had an indigenous friend living in the unofficial LGBT-targeted co-op that committed suicide during his last year of college. If having another support system in place that targeted his needs would have saved him, I don't care how "infantilizing" it would have been. If it can be managed, it's better to have too much support than tragedies like that.
I don't understand why the author feels the need to conflate political correctness with resources that, at least theoretically, make universities less stressful, less homogeneous, and more accessible. If it's something that interferes with academics, that's a completely different concern.
Plus, who wouldn't want a puppy room? I wish my workplace had one of those. :)
I don't think that's necessarily what the author is talking about. However, this part in particular was troubling:
"Then there are offices to help students with anything that could possibly upset them (I suppose to ensure that they remain enrolled snd thus paying fees and tuition). My university, like most, has offices for diversity, indigenous student support, sexual orientation, even a mental health office specifically for international students, etc. As a professor, I am frequently asked to make academic accommodations for every religion and every possible religious holiday that might conflict with assignment. I must ensure that every every disability is accommodated."
What's wrong with providing institutional support to students with different backgrounds and disabilities? Complaining about student support groups, accommodating disabilities or recognizing non-Christian religious holidays is a a bit over the top. It's anecdotal, but I had an indigenous friend living in the unofficial LGBT-targeted co-op that committed suicide during his last year of college. If having another support system in place that targeted his needs would have saved him, I don't care how "infantilizing" it would have been. If it can be managed, it's better to have too much support than tragedies like that.
I don't understand why the author feels the need to conflate political correctness with resources that, at least theoretically, make universities less stressful, less homogeneous, and more accessible. If it's something that interferes with academics, that's a completely different concern.
Plus, who wouldn't want a puppy room? I wish my workplace had one of those. :)
“God forbid any of you, in your years at this institution, are ever confronted with an opinion you do not share. But if you are, you will have a refuge on this campus.”
Being able to maintain a discussion and arguing in favor of your own point of view is no longer a remotely important skill?
Being able to maintain a discussion and arguing in favor of your own point of view is no longer a remotely important skill?
Be advised that's an Onion article.
>I know how it feels to have a death in family when there is an important assignment.
Is he implying students should not be excused on the basis of such an event, merely so they can complete their assignment?
It's worth noting that in BUD/S, if there's a death in a trainee's family, they're usually excused and rolled back to a new class upon return, giving them the opportunity to complete their current phase of training.
If universities think they should be harsher in this regard than some of the toughest military training on the planet, then that's simply deplorable.
Is he implying students should not be excused on the basis of such an event, merely so they can complete their assignment?
It's worth noting that in BUD/S, if there's a death in a trainee's family, they're usually excused and rolled back to a new class upon return, giving them the opportunity to complete their current phase of training.
If universities think they should be harsher in this regard than some of the toughest military training on the planet, then that's simply deplorable.
This is the case virtually military-wide, including infantry units in active combat. I received Red Cross notices twice while on orders (once in an army school, once in Iraq), and leadership scrambles to accommodate soldiers during these events. Army (and other military) leadership doesn't mess around with Red Cross messages or a soldier's mail.
Is it really this way? My, this civilisation really is coming to an end :)
In the immortal words of Jason Ellis, "You need to harden the fuck up."
Why is it that we're removing so much responsibility from kids these days? Or is this the end result of helicopter parents?
Why is it that we're removing so much responsibility from kids these days? Or is this the end result of helicopter parents?
Speaking up when someone hurts you, deliberately or otherwise, _is_ taking responsibility.
These measures doesn't encourage people to speak up, but to avoid hearing anything they don't like. That's not taking responsibility, it's avoiding even the decision of taking or not responsibility.
Telling someone to shut up because they're being abusive is still speaking up and taking responsibility. You have all the right to say what you want. Nobody has the right to listen to you, and they have as much right to tell you to shut your hole.
If you call them kids you've already removed their responsibility. Start calling college students adults and suddenly it all becomes a lot more ridiculous.
Get your shit together, adults.
Get your shit together, adults.
Make no mistake, it is all by design. Counselors, puppy rooms, etc. - the "higher education" industrial complex needs to keep growing and justify the ever-increasing tuition.
I put "higher education " in quotes because it has less and less to do with education, sadly.
I put "higher education " in quotes because it has less and less to do with education, sadly.
They're trying to make sure their kids don't look up to a truck racing, comedy rock/metal vocalist for life lessons.
I don't particularly like the sweatpants and the puppy rooms, etc. but I can live with it - they will grow out of it over time.
What I am much more worried about are two things:
1. More students are joining the constantly-offended-by-everything, humorless killjoy crowd.
2. They appear to be mostly uninterested in politics. But they should be interested in political change, given the bleak future that they face (with mountains of debt, etc). Quite a contrast to the politically-active 60s or 70s.
What I am much more worried about are two things:
1. More students are joining the constantly-offended-by-everything, humorless killjoy crowd.
2. They appear to be mostly uninterested in politics. But they should be interested in political change, given the bleak future that they face (with mountains of debt, etc). Quite a contrast to the politically-active 60s or 70s.
I graduated a year ago and this whole entire article just pissed me off. At the very beginning I was with the author. As a student you don't get to decide what you learn. Either take the class or don't but you can't expect a teacher to not use certain terminology for fear of offending someone.
Where this went off the rails is well pretty much everything after that. The author admits to it but you really can't compare college today with college in the 80's and 90's. They are two completely different beasts. Students walk around in pajamas all day during finals week because they are fucking tired. Finals are hard, comprehensive, and exhausting. That's always been true, but the difference is now you have finals on top of the 8 million extracurriculars you have to be involved in to actually get a job after graduation. Oh and that job that you have to work in order to you know actually pay for that 40K/year piece of paper. No one is working at the bookstore anymore and paying tuition with that.
Are you really complaining about making religious exceptions? If college is supposed to prepare you for the real world, guess what there I'm probably not working on a day of religious observance if I can help it. How ironic is it that a teacher of psychology is complaining about welcome events, recommended by psychologist as helping students adjust to a new environment? School is not a warzone but it can be traumatic for the unprepared. The amount of pressure you have being placed on kids today is utterly incomparable to what you may have dealt with in the past. It's great that you have been teaching for 12 years. Personally I spent 4 of my 5 years in uni working in student life as an RA in the dorms watching group of freshman after group of freshman get absolutely clobbered by their first and often second (where you get the sleeping in the library group) set of finals. HS doesn't prepare kids for college anymore That's not their fault, that's the system. Yet college can be such a high pressure environment that one bad finals week can literally derail the rest of your college career. It is not unusual for a kid to be sat down and "asked" to change majors or leave altogether after bombing a final. Not even the class but just the final.
And as far as the counselors? Having ~75% more people in college than in the 80's tends to make the old system a bit unwieldy. Maybe you enjoyed going from department to department to get basic information but it was a stupid system then that unfortunately still exists now at most places. All counselors do is give you a single person to talk to when you're inevitable sent back to some place you've already been. Counselors suck but actually making sure you on track to get your degree on time is not the simple process it used to be. Is there really something wrong with someone 17-22 having a resource on hand to make sure they aren't making what could very well end up being a 40K mistake if they have to stay an extra year because they took Bio A instead of Bio I (yes that has happened). Most adults have accountants for that same reason.
There are so many things wrong with the system and the authors choice, because it's the in-vogue thing to do, is blame the spoiled kids. The Ivy Leagues are not representative of all college, or even most colleges. And if this is the authors attitude he's part of the reasons kids need the many services available to them. I wish more students would take advantage of the services he mentions so I could stop seeing news of kids killing themselves over college so often.
End Rant
Where this went off the rails is well pretty much everything after that. The author admits to it but you really can't compare college today with college in the 80's and 90's. They are two completely different beasts. Students walk around in pajamas all day during finals week because they are fucking tired. Finals are hard, comprehensive, and exhausting. That's always been true, but the difference is now you have finals on top of the 8 million extracurriculars you have to be involved in to actually get a job after graduation. Oh and that job that you have to work in order to you know actually pay for that 40K/year piece of paper. No one is working at the bookstore anymore and paying tuition with that.
Are you really complaining about making religious exceptions? If college is supposed to prepare you for the real world, guess what there I'm probably not working on a day of religious observance if I can help it. How ironic is it that a teacher of psychology is complaining about welcome events, recommended by psychologist as helping students adjust to a new environment? School is not a warzone but it can be traumatic for the unprepared. The amount of pressure you have being placed on kids today is utterly incomparable to what you may have dealt with in the past. It's great that you have been teaching for 12 years. Personally I spent 4 of my 5 years in uni working in student life as an RA in the dorms watching group of freshman after group of freshman get absolutely clobbered by their first and often second (where you get the sleeping in the library group) set of finals. HS doesn't prepare kids for college anymore That's not their fault, that's the system. Yet college can be such a high pressure environment that one bad finals week can literally derail the rest of your college career. It is not unusual for a kid to be sat down and "asked" to change majors or leave altogether after bombing a final. Not even the class but just the final.
And as far as the counselors? Having ~75% more people in college than in the 80's tends to make the old system a bit unwieldy. Maybe you enjoyed going from department to department to get basic information but it was a stupid system then that unfortunately still exists now at most places. All counselors do is give you a single person to talk to when you're inevitable sent back to some place you've already been. Counselors suck but actually making sure you on track to get your degree on time is not the simple process it used to be. Is there really something wrong with someone 17-22 having a resource on hand to make sure they aren't making what could very well end up being a 40K mistake if they have to stay an extra year because they took Bio A instead of Bio I (yes that has happened). Most adults have accountants for that same reason.
There are so many things wrong with the system and the authors choice, because it's the in-vogue thing to do, is blame the spoiled kids. The Ivy Leagues are not representative of all college, or even most colleges. And if this is the authors attitude he's part of the reasons kids need the many services available to them. I wish more students would take advantage of the services he mentions so I could stop seeing news of kids killing themselves over college so often.
End Rant
As the original author of this post, I see your point. I don't mean to be blaming students...more so the admin in a sometimes desperate attempt to recruit and retain more and more (paying) customers. I worry that the whole system is unstable...I think things are more stressful compared to when I was an undergrad. I sometimes think we (faculty, admin, both) are making things worse in an attempt to make it better.
I understand where you're coming from, and even agree with some of your view. The system in unstable, and I don't know that every policy school administrations put in place help. But I don't think you used very good examples. School is way to PC, but a lot of that is for good reason, even it get's applied unreasonably sometimes.
Honestly though, it just touched a nerve with me. Millenials, as I'm sure every generation before us, has become the it thing to bash. And I feel as though most of the people doing the critiquing skim over the fact that the world we grew up in is fundamentally different than that of our parents, and their parents. The basic assumptions that older people make don't apply for us. We are the first generation pretty much since this country was founded who's job prospects are worst than our parents. Most of our parents will benefit at least something from Social Security. We will never see a dime. We are the largest, most educated generation ever but also the most in debt and most under-employed (people who want a job but can't get one).
Part of all this is just life. But what makes it worse is that people keep characterizing us as lazy, and entitled for wanting the things we've been told all our life we'll get, if we work hard. Due to no fault of our own, the American Dream or whatever that means if pretty much not an option for most of us, and yet people are surprised we started making a decisions without that goal in mind. If I have to work til the day I die, and most likely I will, shouldn't I try to work somewhere that is as fun as I can find. If that means swings, puppies, and playpits is that a bad thing?
Honestly though, it just touched a nerve with me. Millenials, as I'm sure every generation before us, has become the it thing to bash. And I feel as though most of the people doing the critiquing skim over the fact that the world we grew up in is fundamentally different than that of our parents, and their parents. The basic assumptions that older people make don't apply for us. We are the first generation pretty much since this country was founded who's job prospects are worst than our parents. Most of our parents will benefit at least something from Social Security. We will never see a dime. We are the largest, most educated generation ever but also the most in debt and most under-employed (people who want a job but can't get one).
Part of all this is just life. But what makes it worse is that people keep characterizing us as lazy, and entitled for wanting the things we've been told all our life we'll get, if we work hard. Due to no fault of our own, the American Dream or whatever that means if pretty much not an option for most of us, and yet people are surprised we started making a decisions without that goal in mind. If I have to work til the day I die, and most likely I will, shouldn't I try to work somewhere that is as fun as I can find. If that means swings, puppies, and playpits is that a bad thing?
I think this older classic is far more relevant: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110759/
[deleted]
[deleted]
"The article in The Atlantic that inspired my blog post/rant suggests that this may ultimately be damaging for education and mental health care."
No shit. It's the universities' responsibility to teach children and prepare them for the "real world." They're failing because they're afraid of liability when they're charging 40-60k a year per head? That's insane. How about they take responsibility for their actions and start teaching our children. How about the universities (the adults) stand up in this case and the the students (the children) to shut up and sit down and listen. Do these kids feel offended? Oh, boo hoo. They'll get over it.
Otherwise, to put it bluntly, we're going to end up with a whole lot of useless pussies ruining our economy and way of life because they're too scared of some words to do anything even remotely useful.
No shit. It's the universities' responsibility to teach children and prepare them for the "real world." They're failing because they're afraid of liability when they're charging 40-60k a year per head? That's insane. How about they take responsibility for their actions and start teaching our children. How about the universities (the adults) stand up in this case and the the students (the children) to shut up and sit down and listen. Do these kids feel offended? Oh, boo hoo. They'll get over it.
Otherwise, to put it bluntly, we're going to end up with a whole lot of useless pussies ruining our economy and way of life because they're too scared of some words to do anything even remotely useful.
Money Quote:
"professional comedians face increasing difficulty in playing colleges and universities because they cannot do offensive jokes"
The more I learned about sexism, racism etc. I the less I liked the currently famous comedians.
"professional comedians face increasing difficulty in playing colleges and universities because they cannot do offensive jokes"
The more I learned about sexism, racism etc. I the less I liked the currently famous comedians.
Much of this is the natural outcome of near-complete deference to expressions of offense, and declarations of identity. It was a totally predictable outcome, it was warned about way ahead of time, it happened.
perhaps if students had more viable career paths besides college there would be less pressure to succeed in college. as-is, dropping out of college is practically a career death sentence.
College didn't used to be terrifying - the middle class existed and the cost was much lower.
I'd need a puppy break too with what the kids have on the line today.
I'd need a puppy break too with what the kids have on the line today.
It's so hard being an asshole these days.
This thread probably has one of the longest and least valuable comments in this site
This guy seems awfully offended by sweatpants. Practice what you preach.
Micro-aggressions? Sounds like twitter for insults.
Not really. Insults would fall under the category of aggression. A micro-aggression would be anything that isn't inherently insulting. Like the author's example of an American student who asks someone where they are from with the intention of implying that the person being asked is not a "true American." The author's intention was to show that sometimes people will turn something intended to be innocent into an act of aggression.
[deleted]
Sometimes very small, very loud groups can be perceived by outsiders to be more influential than they actually are.
There some to be some more mix-ups in this rant:
>According to some universities, these counsellors provide “customer support”.
This is more an indictment of the sad state of student/university relationship - you pay so much, you're a customer, not a student.
>Final exam time at many large universities is when this infantilization really comes out. Students will literally walk around in public wearing their sleeping clothes and sweats. They nap in the library or in the hallway of academic buildings during normal work hours
That's not infantilization, that's just laziness and a short way to the dorm. Sleeping in a university during "normal work hours" (gasp!) has been normal for decades.
>Education is not trauma
Maybe it didn't use to be a trauma - but in the time of more and more focus on grades and GPAs, forced student competition, "career days", CV polishing courses, mandatory unpaid internships, i.e., ageneral shift from the university as a place that creates politically mature citizens to a place that churns out better trained cogs for companies, education may have become trauma.