Do you know about the chaos that erupted at the University of California, Berkeley, when controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to the campus? Are you aware of the growing trend where speech is equated with violence? How has the rise of 'safetyism' threatened free speech and fueled an environment of violence as a response to ideological opposition? Dive in to understand the complexities of these cultural shifts and their implications for our future.

The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting up a Generation for Failure

In August 2009, Max Haidt, a three-year-old boy, started preschool in Charlottesville, Virginia. His parents attended an orientation where the most discussed rule was the strict ban on nuts due to potential allergies. However, no child in Max’s class had a nut allergy, sparking a conversation about whether such strict measures were necessary.

Peanut allergies in American children were rare until the mid-1990s. By 2008, the rate had tripled. The logical response was to protect children from exposure to peanuts, but this led to an unintended consequence: the rise in peanut allergies. A 2015 study revealed that children exposed to peanut products early in life had a significantly lower rate of developing allergies compared to those who were protected from peanuts.

This phenomenon aligns with the "hygiene hypothesis," which suggests that exposure to various microbes is crucial for developing a robust immune system. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, in his book "Antifragile," explains that systems and people need stressors to grow stronger. Overprotection, he argues, makes systems and individuals fragile.

Modern parenting and education often focus on shielding children from risks and discomfort, a trend that has extended to emotional safety on college campuses. For example, some colleges have adopted "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" to protect students from potentially distressing ideas or words. This overprotection can lead to increased anxiety and depression among young people, as seen in the rise of these issues among the "iGen" generation, those born after 1995.

The emphasis on emotional safety can result in concept creep, where terms like "trauma" and "safety" are applied too broadly, justifying overprotection. This culture of "safetyism" can prevent young people from developing the resilience they need to face real-world challenges.

In essence, children and young adults are antifragile. They require exposure to challenges and stressors to mature into capable adults. Overprotection, driven by an excessive focus on safety, deprives them of these necessary experiences, ultimately making them more fragile and anxious.

Is Overprotective Parenting Making Our Kids More Fragile and Anxious?

Imagine you're a college sophomore feeling blue and anxious. You decide to see a therapist, hoping it will help. Instead of helping you challenge your fears, the therapist amplifies them, suggesting you're in great danger. This scenario illustrates the untruth of emotional reasoning, the idea of always trusting your feelings, which contradicts much ancient wisdom.

Philosophers like Epictetus, Buddha, and Shakespeare all emphasized that our interpretation of events, not the events themselves, disturb us. Boethius, while awaiting execution, wrote about Lady Philosophy helping him reframe his thinking through what we now recognize as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT, developed by Aaron Beck in the 1960s, is a powerful method to identify and change distorted thinking patterns.

CBT helps the conscious mind (the rider) manage the unconscious mind (the elephant). This therapy is effective for conditions like anxiety, depression, and more, by breaking the cycle of negative beliefs and emotions. It promotes better mental health and critical thinking by encouraging people to question their automatic thoughts and consider alternative interpretations.

On college campuses, teaching students to recognize cognitive distortions can improve their intellectual habits. However, some educational practices, like microaggression training, can encourage emotional reasoning. This can lead to increased feelings of victimization and conflict by urging students to interpret ambiguous actions in the least generous way.

Karith Foster's experience in a hospital, where she initially perceived racism but later reinterpreted the situation more charitably, shows the importance of empathy and questioning one's initial emotional reactions.

The rise in disinvitation attempts on campuses, justified by claims that certain speakers will cause harm, further illustrates the pitfalls of emotional reasoning. Education should challenge students and make them think, not merely make them comfortable. Embracing discomfort as part of learning can lead to growth and a better understanding of complex issues.

Epictetus to Aaron Beck: How CBT Can Transform College Campuses

Life is often perceived as a battle between good and evil, but when humanity is divided into unimpeachably good and irredeemably bad, it creates a problematic dualism. This perspective leads to unfair demonization or lionization, as seen in protests where narratives oversimplify complex realities.

In October 2015, Olivia, a student at Claremont McKenna College, shared her feelings of marginalization, highlighting the underrepresentation of Latinos in administrative roles. The dean of students, Mary Spellman, responded with an empathetic email, but Olivia interpreted the term "mold" negatively, sparking campus-wide protests demanding Spellman's resignation. Despite Spellman's apology and intent to support students, she resigned due to escalating anger and lack of public support.

A similar incident occurred at Yale, where Erika Christakis questioned the appropriateness of administrators guiding students on Halloween costumes. Her email, advocating free speech and adult norms, was misinterpreted by students as support for racist costumes, leading to protests and demands for the resignation. Despite Nicholas Christakis' attempts to dialogue and apologize, the couple eventually resigned from their positions.

These incidents illustrate how identity politics, particularly when framed as a battle between oppressed and oppressors, can escalate tensions and lead to call-out cultures. Social psychology experiments, like those by Henri Tajfel, show that even trivial group distinctions can trigger favoritism towards in-group members and less empathy for out-group members. This tribalism, deeply rooted in human evolution, can be amplified in environments emphasizing group distinctions and conflict.

Common-humanity identity politics, exemplified by Martin Luther King Jr., aims to unite by appealing to shared morals and humanity, fostering love and forgiveness. In contrast, common-enemy identity politics, seen in extreme reactions to perceived offenses, divides people into victims and oppressors, fostering hostility and division.

Intersectionality, while highlighting valid points about power relations, can sometimes amplify tribal thinking, pushing students to see life as a battle between good and evil, with straight white males often cast as the oppressors. This approach can lead to a call-out culture, where students gain prestige for publicly shaming perceived offenders, creating an environment of fear and self-censorship.

Such cultures are detrimental to education and mental health, undermining the mission of universities to foster free inquiry, dissent, and intellectual honesty. Embracing common-humanity identity politics and reducing tribalism can help create more inclusive and supportive communities.

Is Identity Politics Fueling a Campus Culture of Division and Resignation?

In 2017, the University of California, Berkeley, became a flashpoint for violent protests when Milo Yiannopoulos, a controversial speaker, was invited to campus. Over 1,500 protesters, many from the radical group Antifa, aimed to shut down his speech, believing his words to incite violence. 

The result was chaos: property damage, physical attacks, and an eventual cancellation of the event. This incident marked a turning point in campus protests, where speech deemed "hateful" was increasingly met with violence.

This shift was not isolated. At Middlebury College, Charles Murray faced a similar fate when his talk was violently disrupted. Such events highlight a growing trend where speech is equated with violence, a belief that has gained traction among some students. Surveys show that a significant minority of students see violence as an acceptable response to "hate speech."

The protests on campuses, including Evergreen State College, illustrate the dangers of this mindset. At Evergreen, a disagreement over a "Day of Absence" escalated into chaos, with students demanding the resignation of a professor who opposed the event's racial exclusion. The situation spiraled into anarchy, with threats and intimidation becoming tools for silencing dissent.

These events reflect a broader cultural shift where safetyism and the belief that words are violence have taken root. This has led to an environment where free speech is under threat, and violence is seen as a justified response to ideological opposition. Figures like Van Jones have pushed back, advocating for resilience over fragility, urging students to engage with challenging ideas rather than shutting them down.

Ultimately, these campus conflicts reveal the dangers of demonizing opponents and using violence as a means to an end, echoing the warnings of leaders like Nelson Mandela. The rise of safetyism and the equating of speech with violence pose significant challenges to the principles of open dialogue and education.

Campus Chaos: When Free Speech Meets Violent Protests

Between 2013 and 2017, many universities experienced a surge in safetyism—a cultural shift marked by heightened concerns over emotional safety and protection from potentially harmful speech. This phenomenon puzzled many, as students who graduated before 2012 seemed largely unaffected. 

Through a comprehensive analysis, researchers identified six key threads explaining this shift: political polarization, teen anxiety and depression, parenting changes, the decline in free play, increased campus bureaucracy, and evolving ideas about justice.

Political polarization has grown significantly since the 1980s, with Republicans and Democrats increasingly viewing each other negatively. This animosity has spilled onto campuses, influencing student reactions and administrative decisions. For example, Allison Stanger, a Middlebury professor, suffered a concussion during protests, illustrating the intense political climate affecting universities.

Teen anxiety and depression have soared since 2011, particularly among girls. Jean Twenge's book, "iGen," reveals that today's teens grow up more slowly, spend more time alone with screens, and experience higher rates of mental health issues. Social media, with its curated images and relational aggression, seems to exacerbate these problems, making girls feel excluded and insecure.

The rise of safetyism on campuses coincides with the arrival of iGen students, who exhibit higher levels of anxiety and depression. This generation's dependence on smartphones and social media, combined with less unsupervised time and fewer developmental milestones, has rendered them more vulnerable. As a result, they seek greater protection and intervention, contributing to the culture of safetyism.

Is Social Media the Culprit Behind Rising Anxiety and Campus Polarization Among American Adolescents?

Paranoid parenting has become increasingly common, leading to children who are less resilient and more anxious. Lenore Skenazy, dubbed "America's Worst Mom" for letting her son ride the subway alone, sparked a debate over modern parenting's overprotectiveness. This trend, fueled by fear of abduction and a competitive college admissions process, deprives children of unsupervised play essential for developing resilience and social skills.

Historically, children roamed freely, learning from experiences. Today, heightened safety concerns and academic pressures result in structured lives with little room for risk-taking. This shift began in the 1980s and escalated in the 1990s, particularly among educated parents. The fear of crime, despite declining rates, and the pressure to excel academically have led to overparenting.

Children of the 1970s enjoyed unsupervised play, fostering independence. In contrast, today's youth face structured activities, reducing opportunities for self-directed learning. The rise of "concerted cultivation" among middle-class families contrasts with "natural growth" parenting in working-class families, impacting children's development.

The decline in free play, crucial for brain development, is concerning. Studies show play-deprived children struggle socially and emotionally. Overprotective measures, while well-intentioned, can hinder growth. Economist Steven Horwitz warns that lacking play skills may weaken democracy by reducing conflict-resolution abilities.

The college admissions frenzy exacerbates the issue, pushing parents to over-schedule children. This "resume arms race" pressures students, contributing to anxiety and depression. Former Yale professor William Deresiewicz criticizes the system that values extracurriculars over genuine learning.

Despite these challenges, Chief Justice John Roberts offers a hopeful message: adversity can teach valuable life lessons. By allowing children to experience setbacks, we can foster resilience and empathy. It's time to rethink parenting and education, embracing the benefits of risk and play to raise competent, independent adults.

From 'America's Worst Mom' to Chief Justice: Rethinking Overprotective Parenting

Imagine you're a college student, already anxious after a visit to the campus counseling center, when you receive an unexpected email from the associate dean of students. It warns you against discussing suicidal thoughts with peers. This happened to many students at Northern Michigan University, revealing a policy that punished students for talking about mental health, despite the risks of stigmatizing those in need. 

This scenario highlights the rise of "safetyism," a culture of overprotection and regulation on campuses. This trend is partly due to the "corporatization" of universities, where a growing administrative staff prioritizes risk management over academic freedom. Consequently, universities increasingly resemble corporations, focusing more on amenities and customer satisfaction than on intellectual rigor.

This environment has fostered a culture where students are seen as consumers. Universities respond to student demands with accommodating policies, often at the expense of free speech and open debate. The rise of bias response teams and speech codes further stifles dialogue, creating an atmosphere of hyper-vigilance and fear of reporting.

Meanwhile, today's students are deeply engaged in social justice issues, spurred by events from 2012 to 2018, such as the Black Lives Matter movement and the #MeToo campaign. This passion for justice is admirable, but when it demands equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities, it risks unjustly punishing individuals to achieve group-level equality. 

The pursuit of equality must align with principles of distributive and procedural justice—ensuring fair rewards for contributions and fair processes. When social justice efforts violate these principles, they may provoke backlash and undermine their own goals.

As universities navigate these challenges, they must balance safety with freedom, protecting students while fostering resilience and open dialogue. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for preparing students not just for college, but for the complexities of the world beyond campus.

Are Universities Sacrificing Free Speech for Safetyism in the Wake of Social Justice Movements?

American teenagers are facing rising rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. College campuses are experiencing a culture of "safetyism" where students feel increasingly fragile and call-out culture is on the rise. This new culture is harmful to both students and universities. The root of this issue can be traced back to overprotective parenting styles that limit children's independence and free play, leading to increased fragility.

To address these issues, we need to foster resilience and independence in children. This can be achieved by encouraging unstructured, unsupervised play, allowing children to take small risks, and teaching them essential life skills. Parents can help their children become more capable by gradually increasing their responsibilities and letting them learn through trial and error. Children should be encouraged to walk or bike to school, engage in outdoor play, and participate in activities that promote independence and resilience.

Schools also play a crucial role in this process. They should provide more opportunities for free play, minimize homework in early grades, and encourage intellectual virtues such as curiosity and open-mindedness. Schools should avoid framing issues as threats to safety and instead promote constructive disagreement and critical thinking.

To prepare students for college and life beyond, a gap year for work or national service is recommended. This year allows young adults to mature, explore their interests, and develop interpersonal skills before entering college.

Universities should prioritize truth and freedom of inquiry. They must commit to free speech, protect faculty and students from unjust punishment, and foster an environment where diverse viewpoints are welcomed. By embracing these principles, universities can create a culture that supports intellectual growth and prepares students for a complex world.

In short, fostering resilience and independence in children, promoting intellectual virtues in schools, and committing to truth and freedom of inquiry in universities can help address the current challenges faced by American teenagers and college students. This approach will lead to stronger, wiser, and more capable individuals who are better prepared for the future.

Building Resilient Minds: The Path from Overprotective Parenting to Empowered College Students

Overprotecting kids from certain exposures can actually lead to increased fragility. This aligns with the broader "hygiene hypothesis," which suggests that some exposure to stressors is essential for developing a robust immune system and overall resilience. 

In modern parenting and education, there's a noticeable shift towards shielding children from risks and discomfort, resulting in higher levels of anxiety and depression among younger generations.

The overemphasis on emotional safety, particularly on college campuses, creates an environment where terms like "trauma" and "safety" are applied too broadly, fostering a culture of overprotection. This trend, often described as "safetyism," prevents young people from developing the resilience needed to handle real-world challenges. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) offers a counter-approach by helping individuals question and change their distorted thinking patterns, promoting better mental health and critical thinking.

On campuses, the rise of call-out culture and the equating of speech with violence have further fueled polarization and conflict. This dynamic stifles free inquiry and intellectual honesty, which are crucial for a healthy educational environment. Encouraging a common-humanity approach, rather than common-enemy identity politics, can bridge divides and foster mutual understanding.

Overprotective parenting styles, driven by fear and competitive pressures, limit children's opportunities for unsupervised play and risk-taking, essential for developing independence and resilience. To address these issues, fostering resilience in children through unstructured play, gradually increasing responsibilities, and teaching essential life skills is key. Schools should promote intellectual virtues and constructive disagreement, while universities must prioritize free speech and diverse viewpoints to prepare students for a complex world.

In essence, balancing protection with exposure to challenges and promoting critical thinking and open dialogue are crucial steps in nurturing resilient, capable individuals ready to navigate life's complexities.

Home

Trending Books

News & Mags

Relax

Curated

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History

The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting up a Generation for Failure

Jonathan Haidt

Do you know about the chaos that erupted at the University of California, Berkeley, when controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to the campus?

Are you aware of the growing trend where speech is equated with violence?

How has the rise of 'safetyism' threatened free speech and fueled an environment of violence as a response to ideological opposition?

Dive in to understand the complexities of these cultural shifts and their implications for our future.

Key Ideas

#1