This book is disturbing, thought-provoking, and highly relevant. Greg Lukianoff specializes in First Amendment issues in higher education. Jonathan Haidt is a psychologist who has written some perceptive books on American culture, including The Righteous Mind and The Happiness Hypothesis. From trigger words to microaggressions to violent protests on college campuses, this book takes a fascinating look at some recent trends and offers an interesting discussion on what has led American society to this point.
The authors see great danger in where the upcoming generations, particularly iGens, are headed. Though they are sympathetic to these young people’s concerns, they reveal alarming data about what will happen to the nation should these trends continue.
The authors claim that much of what is happening in American society today, especially among iGens, is based on these three misconceptions: 1. The Untruth of Fragility. 2. The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning. 3. The Untruth of Us versus Them. The authors state, “We suggest that students were beginning to react to words, books, and visiting speakers with fear and anger because they had been taught to exaggerate danger, use dichotomous (or binary) thinking, amplify their first emotional responses, and engage in a number of other cognitive distortions” (10).
The authors define “coddling” as overprotecting (13). They claim, “We adapt to our new and improved circumstances and then lower the bar for what we count as intolerable levels of discomfort and risk” (13). They use peanut allergies as an example. They note that parents became concerned about children with peanut allergies, so a widespread effort was made to protect children from the dangers of peanuts by banning them from schools. The result? Peanut allergies soared in the 1990s (19). Seventeen percent of children who had been protected from peanuts developed peanut allergies. Only 3% of children who were deliberately exposed to peanuts developed the allergy (21). By trying to protect their children from danger, many parents unknowingly made their children more susceptible to it. They mention the “hygiene hypothesis,” which suggests that as nations become cleaner and wealthier, the allergy rate goes up (21). This data suggests that intentionally avoiding danger isn’t always effective.
The untruth of fragility, especially the rise in “saftyism,” has played a key role in shaping iGens (24). The authors look at what they term “concept creep.” For example, in the early versions of the psychiatric manual DSM, the term “trauma” was used to describe a physical agent causing physical harm, such as a brain injury. In the 1980s, “post-traumatic stress disorder” was added to describe psychiatric trauma following events that would cause “significant symptoms of distress in almost anyone.” These events included war, rape, and torture. By the 2000s, however, the causes had expanded to include anything “experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful . . .” Shifting toward this subjective standard, any pain someone felt could be labeled as trauma (25-26).
The authors go on to discuss the concept of “trigger words,” which are words or phrases a professor or classmate might use that “trigger” feelings of unsafety in a student (29). They claim, “If you see yourself or your fellow students as candles, you’ll want to make sure your campus is a wind-free zone” (28). The authors argue that iGens were protected from perceived danger throughout their adolescence and are hypersensitive to it as a result. As the authors point out, however, “avoiding triggers is a symptom of PTSD, not a treatment for it” (29). They cite Richard McNally who argues, “Trigger warnings are counter-therapeutic because they encourage avoidance of reminders of trauma and the avoidance maintains PTSD” (29). The authors note that the oldest iGens were born in 1995 and entered college in 2013, the year many of these issues began cropping up on college campuses.
The authors also purport that terms or concepts “creep” to extremes over time. They state, “A culture that allows the concept of ‘safety’ to creep so far that it equates emotional discomfort with physical danger is a culture that encourages people to systematically protect one another from the very experiences embedded in daily life that they need in order to become strong and healthy” (29). According to the authors, “safetyism” refers to a culture or belief system in which safety is considered a sacred value (30).
The authors then address the misconception that personal feelings are reliable indicators of safety. They use the analogy of a monkey riding an elephant. Though the monkey is technically the driver, the elephant is far more powerful (35). As a result, when the elephant starts behaving a certain way, the monkey attempts to justify what is happening. Likewise, if iGen students feel anxious or fearful, they justify their feelings by determining that a real danger must be causing it. Perceived danger is equated to actual danger.
Another term the authors discuss is “microaggressions,” a concept Derald Wing Sue popularized in 2007. He describes microaggressions as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color” (40). Originally, the term was used to describe racist behavior toward African Americans, but now it encompasses anything a person says or does that makes someone else feel threatened. The definition even includes unintentional actions that are perceived as threatening. The impact is what matters, not the intent.
The authors are sympathetic to many leftist concerns. They suggest that certain types of “political correctness” are acceptable (46). They claim that promoting polite and respectful interactions by discouraging the use of demeaning terms is a worthy goal (40). In practice, however, such censorship has led to people policing their peers to ensure they don’t say anything that anyone could consider offensive.
The authors write, “Something began happening on many campuses around 2013, and the idea that college students should not be exposed to ‘offensive’ ideas is now a majority position on campus. In 2017, 58% of college students said it is ‘important to be a part of a campus community where I am not exposed to intolerable or offensive ideas’” (48). Forty-five percent of conservative-leaning students held this position as well (49). A strength of college education has traditionally been that students are exposed to diverse ideas in a safe environment. Now politically incorrect ideas are deemed unsafe and banished.
A third untruth is the “us versus them” worldview. Politically differing parties used to see themselves as competitors, but now they view each other as dangerous enemies. The authors recommend using the philosophical “principle of charity,” which recommends: “. . . one should interpret other people’s statements in their best, most reasonable form, not in the worst or most offensive way possible” (55). But today’s language is highly polarized. Those who even listen to or try to understand a differing point of view are labelled as traitors and bigots.
The authors also discuss the rise of “identity politics.” They argue that there is one kind of identity politics that is appropriate, such as when African Americans united with Martin Luther King Jr. to obtain their rights as Americans. But King did not demonize his opponents; he humanized them and appealed to their higher instincts (62). The authors note that modern thinking views society through a lens of hierarchical power. White males hold the most powerful positions in American society and are condemned simply for being white males. The truth, however, is that modern advocates are not interested in equality. They simply want people of color and those who are transgender or homosexual to hold the power instead of white males (66). When society is viewed in terms of power, there will always be an “us” and “them” mentality.
They then examine the concept of “intersectionality.” Again, they see some value in this approach, but not when it is overblown. They argue, “The human mind is prepared for tribalism, and these interpretations of intersectionality have the potential to turn tribalism way up” (68). In this model, the more categories of oppression people possess, the greater their moral voice and rights. White males are the most despised in the new worldview, while the LGBT community and minority women are much nearer to the top of the societal totem pole.
The authors note that “the combination of common enemy identity politics and microaggression training creates an environment highly conducive to the development of a ‘call out’ culture in which students gain prestige for identifying small offenses committed by members of their community, and then publicly ‘calling out’ the offenders” (71). Such an environment breeds “virtue signaling,” which the authors define this as “the things people say and do to advertise that they are virtuous” (73). When someone is called out, many others jump on board to ensure they, too, are viewed as virtuous and appropriately outraged at the most recent offense.
The authors include several other interesting discussions. One is that iGens have an alarmingly high rate of depression and suicide, particularly among girls. In fact, one in seven female college students reported having some form of psychological disorder (156). The authors offer various insights into this phenomenon. Interestingly, in one study, the two activities that were most closely associated with depression among iGens were using an electronic device and watching TV (152). Five activities were associated with low rates of depression: playing sports, attending religious services, reading books, in-person social interaction, and doing homework, all non-screen activities (152). The authors suggest that two hours of screen time per day or less is optimal for psychological health. The authors point out that boys tend to exercise their aggression toward each other in person through fistfights and other physical expressions. Girls, on the other hand, demonstrate aggression more subtly, such as by posting pictures on Facebook from a party so another girl can see that she was not invited. The uninvited girl might suffer in front of her laptop screen all evening because she was excluded. They can’t escape social media; it is a constant reminder of how much more fun their former friends or boyfriend is having than they are. Such dynamics are leading to a spike in depression.
The authors suggest that the huge focus on safety is a result of “Paranoid Parenting” (163). This trend arose largely in response to some highly publicized child abductions, such as the kidnapping of Etan Patz on May 25, 1979 (165). The authors point out that roughly 100 children are abducted each year out of 70 million minors, which is a very low percentage. Furthermore, the crime rate drastically dropped off in the 1990s. The streets are much safer now than they have been for a long time, yet parents continue to parent in fear. But overprotection is a danger as well (169).
The authors point out that today’s children do not play enough (181). They spend too much time in front of screens or with their parents and far too little time engaged in unstructured play time with their friends (185). This trend is causing children to lack creativity and develop an unhealthy sense of fear.
The authors conclude the book with numerous suggestions to help parents avoid raising overprotected, coddled children. Although the authors are left-leaning, they attempted to present their case based on science and demographic studies. Certainly, enormous societal shifts are necessary.
I recommend this book. It goes a long way toward explaining modern college students’ peculiar behavior.
Rating 4
