Over the past few months, it has become en vogue for well-meaning middle-aged journalists, social scientists, and politicians to chastise college students for their perceived “sensitivity.” Scholars and pundits from Frank Bruni to Bill Maher have bemoaned the coddling of American students, as well as the development of an awareness of microaggressions and advocacy for safe spaces. Their statements have taken on new popularity in the days since the Middlebury protest. A few weeks ago, Charles Murray, a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)-identified white nationalist, spoke at an event at Middlebury College. In opposition to his presence, students gathered in protest within the venue, drowning out his talk with chants. The demonstration turned violent outside, where students attacked Murray’s car.
The analysts call this sort of behavior childish and new, an ostensible break from the behavior of the generations before us. Some even point to it as a sign of totalitarianism, claiming that the college students of today will become the word-police of tomorrow. One of the leading academics in this camp is Jonathan Haidt, an NYU Stern professor who visited Duke last fall to lecture the Visions of Freedom and American Experience FOCUS clusters. In case you were wondering, I chose the word “lecture” deliberately.
Last November, Haidt told us that we had all been brought up in sheltered households. Our schools, our parents, and our current academic pursuits were all trying to hide us from the harsh, painful reality of confronting things that “hurt our feelings.” In reference to trigger warnings for survivors of sexual or domestic abuse, Haidt explained that the fastest way to get over emotional trauma is to confront the very topic that weighs on you daily. Anger welled up in my throat and knots formed in my stomach as he asserted that victims of sexual assault were simply “weak” for wanting notification before confronting their trauma in front of a classroom of their peers.
Haidt and his colleagues seem to forget that not every college student was lucky enough to be “sheltered.” In fact, many students grow up in the face of unimaginable violence or harassment, and all of us experience the realities of what Haidt condescendingly refers to as “normal life.” Classrooms today are more diverse than ever before, which means that they include more perspectives than ever before. In assuming that college students all grew up wearing protective bubble suits, critics of millennials indicate their removal from their subjects.
To be frank, the “whiny college student” is not a new archetype. College students have always been radical, and it is characteristic of the generations above them to criticize their emerging social and political cultures. The college students of today are quite similar to the college students of the 1960’s, the 1990’s and the 2000’s. We are all confronting the nature of the world before us, and we are all often critical of what we find. We are idealistic and believe that we should keep people from systematic pain in as many ways as possible.
This is not to say that I expect to go through life without being hurt, or without confronting theories and opinions that conflict with my own. Debate drives change, and pain can be a catalyst for innovation. It is undoubtedly important to interact with perspectives that could be considered offensive, and to grapple with the diverse array of available academic thought. Accordingly, I am glad that the American Enterprise Institute branch at Duke invited Charles Murray to spark a conversation. Equally accordingly, protests, walkouts and disruptions staged by college students are, in essence, extensions of this conversation. Though I do not condone the use of violence, peaceful demonstrations let the world know that a certain community vehemently disagrees with a position.
Political activism is not petty, and today’s students are no more sheltered than the lofty academics by whom they are criticized. Some students may be headstrong, stubborn and demanding, but their energy is focused toward a new way of thought and life. They choose not to be defenseless and not to give in to the assumption of their naivete, but to continue conversations about their closely-held beliefs with the gusto of youth. So sure, some may disagree with the ideas of trigger warnings and microaggressions, but their attempts to assert that there has been a fundamental shift in the nature of college students is a troubling way of discrediting their intellectual opponents. In 30 years, people will make the same critiques of our own college-aged children.
Leah Abrams is a Trinity freshman. Her column, “cut the bull,” runs on alternate Fridays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
Leah Abrams is a Trinity senior and the Editor of the editorial section. Her column, "cut the bull," runs on alternate Fridays.