After years of taking prerequisites for my major, I relished the idea of taking only electives in my senior year as an undergraduate. Just about all my classes dealt with topics related to mental health: abnormal psychology, criminal behaviour, relationship science, developmental psychology, and happiness and well-being. Lukianoff and Haidt's recent article in the Atlantic about mental health in education grabbed my attention with its list of cognitive disorders and its use of concepts from Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). The article is about more than just political correctness, microaggressions, or trigger warnings, so I have been disappointed in how acquaintances have been quick to dismiss the article as a result in part of their established beliefs.
One acquaintance implied that Lukianoff and Haidt's arguments were invalid or flawed on the basis of the authors' race, gender, and social class. This ad hominem attack also implied that the authors were unlikely to ever become victims of sexual harassment, and thus their authority was somehow suspect. I wonder if the individual who made that statement ever actually read the article. Did this person even get past the headline? I realise that the title "How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus" is provocative and "clickbait-y" (pardon the neologism), but that is an artefact of modern journalism. We have Hearst and Pulitzer to thank (with plenty of vitriol) for leaving this relic of manufactured rage and sensationalism in our media headlines. Recent articles about "sexist" air conditioning come to mind, but I digress. Please, look past the headline before forming an opinion about a written piece. "The Coddling of the American Mind" appears to be this article's proper title, but I can see how the alternative title would attract more attention. Controversy makes for more views which makes for more monies. It is a shame, but that is just what happens when you mix business and journalism. In any case, having an opinion after reading the headline is not the same as having an informed opinion after perusing an article and by "perusing" I do not mean "skimming".
So, if the Lukianoff and Haidt article is not just about trigger warnings, then what is it about? I have paraphrased the authors' ideas in an outline below, but in a nutshell the article is about how higher education has embraced cognitive distortions and fostered "bad" thinking styles. If you asked me to clarify what that meant, I would say that if you are unwilling to confront discomforting topics and issues, you will run into a plethora of problems once you leave the walled gardens and echo chambers that surround you.
True, the article is not comprehensive or even close to being "perfect". I would have liked to see the argument fleshed out more, but I realise that it is an article and not a book. The examples in the article felt cherry-picked at times and I had hoped to see scientific studies quantifying the effectiveness of CBT against words and ideas perceived as being traumatic or uncomfortable. Best of luck to those with grant proposals and kudos to researchers who manage to secure funding for studies dealing with mental health. That is an uphill battle, especially when money is involved.
All I have to add is that I now have second thoughts about becoming an educator. I already have trouble conveying my intent through words. I mean no harm, yet someone out there will take offence because our cognitions, experiences, and interpretations will differ even through we see and hear the same words. How would I go about policing my thoughts, words, and actions to make sure that no one could possibly be offended? How then would I discuss particularly touchy topics in a mature manner if students are unwilling to confront the topic? I suppose they could walk out of the classroom or even drop the class, but how would that help them grow as critical thinkers?
Entering the profession of teaching might run contrary to my best interests.
Paraphrased Outline:
- The current "political correctness" movement differs from the one in the 80s and 90s. The "old" movement focused on including diverse perspectives in addition to restricting hate speech whereas the current movement is "largely about emotional well-being."
- Vindictive protectiveness has spawned a culture in which you must think twice before acting. This hinders critical thinking.
- The current culture is the result of generational shifts, increased adult protection, political polarisation, the rise of social media, and more reported cases of emotional distress.
- Psychotherapy, especially Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, minimises cognitive distortions and teaches critical thinking. Cognitive distortions and disorders have discouraged critical thinking
- Emotional reasoning is when subjective feelings guide (and cloud) the truth. It has fostered a culture where you can use being offended as a weapon.
- Fortune telling, seeing danger and distress in everyday situations, has led to the rise of trigger warnings. As a result, avoiding material that could possibly offend or trigger trauma has become a priority for some students and faculty. This culture of avoidance ultimately spreads because of social learning. Eventually, more people become unwilling to discuss serious, uncomfortable subjects.
- Labeling microaggressions and magnifying the importance of perceived slights and insults has resulted in zero tolerance for things that could be perceived as being threatening or offensive in some way, especially jokes.
- Negative filtering is part of what drives students to protest against and "disinvite" guest speakers. These students see someone they disagree with and ignore anything that could be perceived as being "good" in favour of highlighting the "bad" things about a person. By not even considering the views of someone they disagree with, these students will have fewer opportunities to encounter diverse perspectives.
- Call to Action:
- Redefine federal definition of harassment a "pattern of objectively offensive behaviour" rather than a single remark or incident
- Discourage universities from restricting speech or using trigger warnings
- Teach students "how to live in a world full of potential offences."
- Use CBT to facilitate critical thinking, to be able to communicate with people who think differently from you
- List of Common Cognitive Disorders via Leahy, Holland, and McGinn.
