ShareThis Page
Too sensitive for new ideas? |

Too sensitive for new ideas?

| Sunday, November 29, 2015 9:00 p.m

One way I can tell I’m getting old — aside from it taking more time to get my socks on in the morning — is that my ideas might seem to some to be outmoded or, as more flippantly described by a business friend, “old school.”

I’ve always thought, for example, that the central purpose of a university is to challenge students with new ideas, to be a place where they’re exposed to a variety of opinions and clashing concepts so they can intellectually grow and develop their own well-formed ideas and philosophies.

Nevertheless, there’s now a craze on campus of developing “safe places” — insulated and protective bubbles where students can go and not be knocked off their rockers by words or comments they might say are unwelcome.

The bubbles are designed to be unreal places, organized around a deliberate phoniness of forced calm where the fragility of a student’s temperament or mindset is less likely to encounter the rough and tumble of the actual world.

The goal is an environment where injury to the more vulnerable is minimized, as with a straitjacket — the creation of a benign place where supposed psychic wounding is identified by way of thin-skinned cries of “injury,” followed by institutional punishments to eradicate what now are classified as micro-aggressions: words, lectures or discussions that supposedly produce tiny traumas or petite micro-wounds.

“Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities,” write Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt in “The Coddling of the American Mind” recently in The Atlantic.

“A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense.”

The ironic result is that students, in the name of emotional well-being, are increasingly protesting for protection from words and ideas they don’t like, producing a situation that Lukianoff and Haidt categorize as “disastrous for education — and mental health.”

“Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking their 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,” report Lukianoff and Haidt.

In February, students filed Title IX complaints against Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, because they were offended by the words she wrote in “The Chronicle of Higher Education” describing the new campus politics of sexual paranoia.

The absurdity is now at the point where even good-natured comedians are finding the cliques of perpetually offended college attendees to be insufferable. Bill Maher found no shortage of ludicrousness in the “Bias-Free Language Guide” developed by students at the University of New Hampshire:

“Rich” is labeled as problematic/outdated in the guide; preferred is “a person of material wealth.”

“American” is to be replaced with “resident of the U.S.,” while “foreigners” should be “international people.”

“Man’s achievements” is to be changed to “human achievements,” but even that might represent the prejudice of human chauvinism since it doesn’t recognize the key role that monkeys play in testing drugs and eyeliner.

Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur (

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.