Today’s students are anything but coddled

The furore about trigger warnings and no-platform campaigns reveals not a timid generation but rather one unafraid to tackle reality head-on, argues Tom Cutterham

December 3, 2015
Professor snarling at students (concept illustration)
Source: Alamy/iStock

For a couple of years now, commentators in both the US and the UK have complained that students in higher education are becoming worryingly fragile. Coddled and hypersensitive, they allegedly spend their college years hiding from scary ideas.

In a recent article in The Atlantic, Greg Lukianoff, president and chief executive of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Cooley professor of ethical leadership at New York University, say that this approach is putting students’ education, and even their mental health, at risk. For their own good, the commentators argue, students urgently need to stop looking out for themselves and to hand control back to institutions and professors.

In 2014, the debate in the US on this subject centred mainly around “trigger warnings” – notices meant to inform students in advance about violent, horrific or damaging content in classroom material. By asking for such warnings, students forced academics to consider what effects the material they select might have on people with backgrounds and experiences different from their own. Some professors complained that it was easier just to avoid all remotely contentious material. But, of course, our established cultural canon is littered with torture, rape, misogyny and racism. Teaching it beyond the exclusively white, male classrooms in which it was formed has turned out to require a new approach, in which the beneficent effect of classic literature is not just taken for granted. We might call that sensitivity. We might also call it critical thought.

Trigger warnings, or at least the row about them, never became such a big deal in the UK. Here, the focus of attention of those concerned about “coddled students” has principally been on student activists’ attempts to disrupt speakers they disagreed with. Recently, feminist writer Germaine Greer threatened to cancel a lecture at Cardiff University after students started a petition condemning her “misogynistic views towards trans women” (although the lecture ultimately went ahead). When an anti-abortion group at Christ Church, Oxford invited two men to debate abortion on campus a year ago, it was the college that cancelled the event after student protests. Journalist Brendan O’Neill, who was supposed to speak for the pro-choice side, wrote in The Spectator that the protesters were “bereft of critical faculties and programmed to conform”. The article, “Free speech is so last century. Today’s students want the ‘right to be comfortable’”, went on to say that students were being “rebranded as fragile creatures, overgrown children who need to be guarded against any idea that might prick their souls or challenge their prejudices”.

But that description doesn’t fit Niamh McIntyre, one of the student activists who protested against the debate. “I don’t think students today are fragile,” she tells me. “On the contrary, we’re more committed to rooting out pervasive sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia, which actually takes a lot of strength. This generation of students and activists is standing up and saying that, for too long, men have spoken over women, trans and non-binary people, just as white people have spoken over people of colour. In some cases, they should shut up and listen. And sometimes, to the horror of certain academics and professional narcissists, this involves rethinking the right to speak at all times, for all people, on any topic.”

Opposing campus speaking invitations has also been part of the US debate after student demands for the cancellation of a series of high-profile commencement speeches, including those by Condoleezza Rice (the US secretary of state under George W. Bush, who was scheduled to address Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey) and Christine Lagarde (managing director of the International Monetary Fund, due to speak at Smith College, a women’s liberal arts college in Massachusetts). In their Atlantic article, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Lukianoff and Haidt argue that by caving in to such demands for “disinvitations”, universities “will have reinforced the belief that it’s okay to filter out the positive”. After all, these women “could have been seen as highly successful role models for female students”. Shouldn’t that success be more important than the policies and ideas they stand for? Students should avoid focusing on speakers’ supposed failings, just as they should complain less about the misogyny, racism and class prejudice in the films and literature they are asked to study.

One thing that critiques of modern students have in common is a recognition of the shifting balance of power between students and faculty. A widely read article in Vox this June, “I’m a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me”, exemplifies the growing sense that academics no longer dominate their own classrooms. This is partly a result of the increasing precarity of academic employment. But students have also found new ways of asserting themselves, especially by using the internet. As unions are in the factory, so social media can be on the campus: an organising tool against authority, linking together voices that are otherwise marginalised and disconnected.

Read more: White, Western and male? Prepare to be told off for writing a poem

Such tools would be useless, however, if students didn’t know what to do with them. Critics assert that modern students are losing their powers of critical thinking, but what we are actually seeing is that power in action: students are using their critical faculties to uncover structures of power in their own academic and social environments. They are clearly recognising that discourse and ideas can be powerful, and that is precisely why they struggle to reshape the discursive terrain, to change the conversation in ways that further their political and moral commitments. Humanities professors should be proud.

This is what’s so odd about the language of coddling and hypersensitivity. If students are really so fragile, if they’re really hiding from scary ideas in a thoughtless cocoon of political correctness, why are they so often to be found out on the campus, demonstrating, protesting, petitioning and organising? That’s not what hiding looks like. It’s not what coddling looks like. In fact, the people showing greatest signs of coddling are those professors for whom the classroom has been a safe space for way too long. Now they’re apparently afraid that their “small or accidental slights”, as Lukianoff and Haidt put it, are going to get pounced on. They’d much rather students “question their own emotional reactions” than question the assumptions coming from the front of the classroom.

Lukianoff and Haidt’s Atlantic article distinguishes itself from similar jeremiads by drawing a strong parallel between modern students’ behaviour and a series of “cognitive distortions” symptomatic of mental illness. So when the authors suggest that students should stop being so sensitive and end their protests and demands, they present themselves as doing so in the students’ own interests. While the problem they identify is “vindictive protectiveness” on the part of students, their own position is plain old protectiveness.

For example, Lukianoff and Haidt point out that if you have a phobia of elevators, simply avoiding lifts is no way to deal with your problem. Instead you need to “take your cues from Ivan Pavlov” and try exposure therapy. The same is true with trigger warnings, they say. “Classroom discussions are safe places to be exposed to incidental reminders of trauma.” But classrooms are safe places for the critical analysis of language and ideas only if we actually make them so. And that’s exactly what trigger warnings are supposed to help accomplish. You wouldn’t shove your elevator-phobic friend into an elevator and hope for the best. Taking proper account of her perspective and helping her might even teach you something about lifts that you didn’t know before.

In his Spectator article, O’Neill describes student protesters’ goal as creating “places where no student should ever be made to feel threatened, unwelcome or belittled”. That’s a goal all universities and professors should share. It’s hard to see why they wouldn’t. When commentators assume that classrooms and campuses are already safe spaces, or, conversely, that safety doesn’t really matter, they’re ignoring the experiences of marginalised people, including the disabled, ethnic minorities and women, who face threatening, unwelcoming and belittling behaviour all the time. When these people and their allies fight back and assert their own rights over the spaces they live in, that’s not “vindictive protectiveness” – it’s politics.

The Oxford abortion debate and the furore over Greer are far from the only examples of this in the UK. Student protest led to the temporary disbandment of the London School of Economics’ rugby club last year after it published a leaflet full of homophobic and misogynistic slurs. Anti-fascist activists delayed and disrupted French National Front leader Marine Le Pen’s speech at the Oxford Union. Campaigners against rape culture saw the pop song Blurred Lines banned from students’ unions across the country. And campaigns such as Rhodes Must Fall and Why Is My Curriculum White? continue to pressure universities on issues of race, diversity and inclusion.

US student activists have chalked up similar achievements in recent years, and not only with their “disinvitation” campaigns. Protests against rape culture, misogyny and racism have galvanised student activists and brought the struggle of marginalised groups to the forefront of campus life. Last month, for example, Timothy Wolfe resigned as president of the University of Missouri system following student protests, including an eight-day hunger strike, against the racist atmosphere that students said he had allowed to persist on campus. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the Missouri protests showed how “a few people speaking up and speaking out can have a profound impact”.

The academics and commentators who complain about student protest usually lay claim to the same broad ideological ground as the protesters themselves. Some, like Lukianoff and Haidt, think that campuses are “generally left-leaning” and that universities should make “a greater commitment…to the assembly of a more politically diverse faculty”. But mostly, they too think that racism, sexism and rampant inequality are wrong, that women should control their own bodies and that everyone should be free from harassment, violence and discrimination. So what worries them so much about the students who stand up for those ideals? It used to be that academics themselves controlled the expression of those values. In a formal public debate, everyone knew just who held authority. That’s changed, and that’s what unnerves the critics.

Brendan O’Neill, this time writing for the Daily Mail, recently branded student protesters “the new fascists” after a successful student anti-racist campaign to take down a promotional video for the University of Cambridge featuring the historian David Starkey. O’Neill’s shrill catastrophism is primarily a good way to sell papers, but it does draw on a broader sense that power on campus has shifted away from middle-class, middle-aged, white men.

Especially online, professors can feel vulnerable, even bullied. “There’s been a sense in recent years”, one University of Cambridge academic tells me, “that there is a real danger to opening certain kinds of questions, and raising certain kinds of ideas, because some individuals may come after you personally for that, and accuse you of things you have not done or said, and insist on the blanket acceptance of certain highly moralised – and in many cases, quite seriously under-thought – points of view, the questioning of which is simply beyond the boundaries of permitted enquiry.” The policing of those boundaries was once firmly in the hands of university authorities. Now there’s a struggle going on that might involve hurt on both sides. Deepening divisions and mistrust between students and academic staff undermine the way teaching and learning is expected to work.

It could be, in fact, that the traditional model of the university just isn’t compatible with this newly empowered, student-led politics of social justice. It was a model forged, along with the canon, in a world where white male supremacy and class hierarchy were rarely questioned. The university was built for future beneficiaries and leaders of that system. There is a lot of work to be done reimagining and reconstructing it. What should give us hope, though, is the fact that, right now, universities are places where young people are teaching each other the arts of solidarity, critique and resistance. In an era of encroaching climate disaster and prolonged economic stagnation, prospects for the young are increasingly bleak. Those who approach the world around them with a critical sensitivity, those who are ready to stand up and fight, will be the ones who make a better world for their own and for future generations.

Tom Cutterham is the Cox Junior Fellow at New College, Oxford.

Rough passages ahead: eschew specific warnings for general awareness

A student at our institution recently had to abandon her dissertation on the American philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler after becoming depressed by the reflections on her own life that Butler’s theories had inspired. This is the kind of case that has sparked recent debate, especially in the US, about whether students should be given “trigger warnings” before being exposed to potentially upsetting material – thereby giving them the option of avoiding it.

But our student’s reaction had not been anticipated by the supervisor – and that, say critics, is one of the big problems with trigger warnings. In 2011, we undertook a research project, funded by the Higher Education Academy, on teaching sensitive subjects in Classics. We also solicited views from other disciplines that we thought would face similar issues, such as psychology, the arts therapies, criminology and education. Our initial assumption was that the subjects students might find most difficult were those involving sex, violence and death. But it was pointed out that different individuals’ particular experiences might generate a difficult atmosphere in a class discussion no matter what the topic. An example was a warm-up exercise in an arts therapy class that asked students to close their eyes and imagine themselves on a beach, listening to the waves. For one student, this triggered the memory of the last time she heard her boyfriend’s voice – calling her name as he was being pulled out by the current after they had gone for a swim in the moonlight.

Sometimes, of course, it is easier to predict that material might provoke adverse reactions. However, there was agreement among our interviewees that it was an essential part of a university education to present challenging material that was relevant to the curriculum. Some academics go so far as to deliberately shock their students in order to challenge their unexamined assumptions and perspectives. One classicist described a session in which he showed new students the Eurymedon Vase, which shows a young Greek man making an aggressive sexual movement towards a bent-over Persian. The students’ laughter at seeing this died away when they were then shown an image of US soldiers laughing over the naked bodies of Iraqi prisoners. The lecturer used the images to explore rape as a metaphor for military domination.

Many people we interviewed said that they strove to give trigger warnings. However, one psychologist worried that drawing attention to the potential for trauma could result in a “placebo effect”, causing more students to be traumatised than otherwise would have been. He suggested that there was a need to stress that it was also fine not to be affected.

Our conclusion is that it is best to prepare students for what they might expect in their studies in general, rather than to attempt to give them specific trigger warnings. There also needs to be university-wide collaboration on supporting students who have experienced traumatic reactions, including the offer of welfare and counselling services. But all individual academics, across all disciplines, also need to be trained to deal with adverse reactions to their teaching material – however innocuous it might seem.

Susan Deacy and Fiona McHardy are principal lecturers in Classics at the University of Roehampton.

Please login or register to read this article

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments


Print headline: It's not students who feel threatened

Reader's comments (10)

The big problem I have with this article is that the author is attempting to re-frame restrictions on freedom of speech as some kind righteous cause that takes power away from professors and other academics and critics. The problem with that is that it can't end there. When professors (not just white men, but anyone) cannot expose students to controversial material for fear that some of their students might take offense, it harms everyone, including those attempting to create a more tolerant society. What exactly is the problem with hearing opinions that are odious? Especially when those opinions are common in the wider political world? An excellent example would be the abortion debate that the author mentioned. It was canceled because certain students were offended by the content that one of the speakers sought to present. What about the students who were offended that their views were marginalized? I'm not arguing for either side of the abortion debate, I'm arguing that both sides hold legitimate positions regardless of what their opponents believe. As such, a university denying the rights of the undecided students to hear two competing arguments on a political issue of the day horrifies me. Are there types of speech that should be restricted for the safety of the student population? Yes. But that is a very limited set of speech, things like calls to violence by white supremacy groups, neo-Nazis, or radical Islamic organizations that promote violence. Anything other than that? Any place where legitimate debate may be had? We as students must be exposed to that, if only so we know what our hated political opponents are saying. One other thing. The author quoted an activist who helped implement the revocation of the abortion debate. She said that "we’re more committed to rooting out pervasive sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia…for too long, men have spoken over women, trans and non-binary people, just as white people have spoken over people of color. In some cases, they should shut up and listen…this involves rethinking the right to speak at all times, for all people, on any topic." That last segment is incredibly important. I want to really look at this quote, because the author holds it up as a critical piece of evidence in his argument that activists are good people trying to fix society. Look at the actual content though. The activist is arguing for removing values and personal opinions from society, through censorship if necessary, and clearly is arguing that there are certain ideas that must be removed from society for the good of select minorities. I don't deny that many of the ideas the activists are targeting are odious. I don't deny that I personally would love to never encounter someone holding many of those views if I could avoid it. But the fundamental right of individuals to hold opinions counter to those held by a majority of society are sacrosanct. If these activists are permit to silence white men on the topic of race simply because of their gender and race, they are no better than the bigots they seek to replace. By all means, argue with the white men on the topic of race. Disagree, vehemently even. Vote them out of office if need be. But they must be allowed to speak so long as they do not threaten others with violence. Not just for their sake, but ours too. If we as society begin to mandate what types of ideas we allow in our public discourse we have no idea where it could end. Today we shut down a pro-abortion speaker, tomorrow what happens when we shut down a religious leader with thousands of followers? Or a political candidate because we disagree with their politics? Or an academic whose work is controversial? We will only drive those opinions underground, losing both knowledge of our political opponents, and the benefits of a pluralistic open society. This societal pressure will create a group of people who feel oppressed for the views they hold in an intolerant society. That is generally a precursor to violence. We need to maintain a broad definition of freedom of speech, not just for our individual benefit, but so that we as members of society retain the freedom to discuss and criticize ideas in the open, rather than resort to violence to have our ideas heard, whatever those ideas may be.
I'm fairly certain that the abortion debate was protested against not because of a speaker's pro-life views, but because both speakers were MEN. The fact that "authorities" on women's bodies, people who are allowed to speak on behalf of women, are not themselves women, is a clear instance of our current power structures asserting themselves to deny minority populations a voice. I quote from the activist, Niamh McIntyre, you so dislike: "This generation of students and activists is standing up and saying that, for too long, men have spoken over women, trans and non-binary people, just as white people have spoken over people of This generation of students and activists is standing up and saying that, for too long, men have spoken over women, trans and non-binary people, just as white people have spoken over people of colour. The fact that you missed this point and immediately took offense at the suppression of what you seem to think is free speech makes me think that you are the coddled one.
My apologies, the formatting of my comment was messed up. It was not meant to be a wall of text.
Thank you bbrow008 for your comment. I couldn't agree more.
The Cardiff students attempted to ban Greer for comments she had made previously, and which had nothing to do with her proposed talk. So it was an effort to punish her for having expressed uncomfortable/nonconforming views, rather than an attempt to regulate speech on campus. The problem with your article is that it takes for granted the existence of certain amoral positions which have in themselves very little nuance or subtlety; you are in fact repeating the mistakes of certain intolerant and uncritical students. Greer's view, for example, that men who choose to define themselves as women and undertake certain procedures to make them better resemble women are in fact not women is, on the face of it, perfectly obvious. Gender is a social construct but sex is rather more firmly - physically - established (a man who is born a man will never be able to give birth). I think that is Greer's point. Those who protest about this sort of argument choose to ignore the complexities of the debate for fear of upsetting people - so for example it may be perfectly acceptable for a man to define himself as a woman and it would be rude and aggressive to continue to describe him as a man. However, it would be equally and simultaneously true to say that he is not in fact a woman and was not born a woman. Because the second point risks undermining or contradicting the first, many such students will refuse to hear it aired and will rule it to be misogynist in order to remove any risk of causing offence - so a perfectly obvious and uncontroversial truth becomes silenced in order to protect a political position. It is problematic when truths and rational opinions are undermined in this manner to protect others from offence, because we end up in a sort of insane mental state where we disavow truth for convenience; this sort of doublethink can never be welcome. I would say, however, that we turn this debate into rather a bigger thing that it is. It does not I think undermine all debate on university campuses - it seems in the main to be very intensely focussed upon gender politics, and is peculiar to a certain sort of student. The majority of university discussion and research remains relatively free and open.
Students today are anything but studious--lacking zeal for truth. But that is because they are fed a steady diet of rot gut ideology instead being taught the disciplines to help them to make up their own minds rather than follow the bad palaver offered up by the soft headed media, which seem to be the single most important influence on their teachers and professors, all hard left. They firmly believe they have a right to a kind comfort usually afforded to the imbecilic or old. Unpracticed in language and reason, of which they are surely in modern times the most ignorant in history, they are poor spokesmen for their own, immature views and responses, and vulnerable to the cheap and easy rhetoric of the left that has enslaved and killed so many millions from the Soviets to the Islamo-Fascists today. They are extending their adolescence well into their thirties, and in the meanwhile are so staunchly anti-speech and anti-thought that the Russian Federation could be hiring them to fill its police ranks--if only they studied foreign languages. I don't blame young people, however: they are the very sad product of their lamentably awful schools and universities.
Whether intentionally or not, this article is deeply misleading. Take the claim that 'When an anti-abortion group at Christ Church, Oxford invited two men to debate abortion on campus a year ago, it was the college that cancelled the event after student protests' - this is true as far as it goes, but omits the fact that the college cancelled the event in response to threats by students to disrupt the debate with musical instruments, making it effectively impossible for it to go ahead. The cancellation wasn't, as this statement suggests, a considered reaction on hearing the opinions of the student body. More generally, the portrayal of this issue as students versus reactionary professors neglects to mention that the students in question are a small, unrepresentative bunch of ideologues, whose actions are, in most cases, opposed by the majority of students. As for the claim made by Distraktd_249973 that the abortion debate was opposed because it involved two men - well, this is untrue, and wouldn't amount to much of a defence even if it were. That was one of the students' stated reasons for opposing it, but the fact that a similar debate at Cambridge just beforehand - one that did involve women - was also attacked by the Women's Campaign suggests that they were merely seeking to close down dissenting opinion. Indeed, women are disproportionately the victims of 'no platforming', Germaine Greer being just the most prominent example. The idea that one's race, sex, sexuality etc. ought to be a factor in determining where and how one is allowed to speak is absurd and invidious, but, in any case, reality simply doesn't bear out the idea that these student campaigns are making room for minorities to speak. Their only effect (and, I suspect, their aim) is to enforce ideological conformity.
"Those who approach the world around them with a critical sensitivity, those who are ready to stand up and fight, will be the ones who make a better world for their own and for future generations." That is two groups, not one. There are those who approach the world around them with a critical sensitivity, and then there are those who are ready to stand up and fight. Being ready to stand up and fight requires simplification, a 'for-or-against' or 'friend-or-foe' logic that is prone to compromise critical sensitivity. One reasonable complaint against the activists described here is precisely that their poor past discursive experiences (especially online) have encouraged that kind of 'friend-or-foe' simplification. Instead of asking who is making the best arguments they tend to ask who is an ally, who gets a 'like'. That is a straightforwardly anti-intellectual stance, and one that cannot be accommodated in the classroom. (Well obviously it can be accommodated as a an OBJECT of analysis, just not as a MODE of analysis). An example of the friend-or-foe logic: "[W]e're ... committed to rooting out pervasive sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia." No tolerance there of the possibility that there may be objections to trans* identity claims that are NOT phobias; no acknowledgement of the potential intellectual tensions between feminism and trans* identity claims; no recognition of the fact that years of patient work establishing that gender (unlike sex) is socially constructed may be at odds with the individualistic gender essentialism relied upon by many trans* activists; no recognition, then, that there may be a legitimate feminist case for refusing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the trans* community; no recognition, indeed, that any idea could matter except "linking together voices that are otherwise marginalised and disconnected". What about some rigorous analytical critique of the supposed links? What about asking which marginalised voices have a good case to make against their marginalisation, and which don't? In short, what about some critical sensitivity?
Saying that trigger warnings are there to stop free speech is like saying that allergy warnings are trying to stop the production of food with allergens in there They aren't, they're just warning people about what their snack contains. Likewise a lecture which deals with - for example - the jim crow laws in America or votes for women should absolutely have the fact they contain racism and violence against women announced. The same way a bag of nuts has 'contains: nuts' on it. I had a presentation on society in the home during the late 19th and early 20th century. Which I forewarned people contained discussion of domestic violence, rape and general violence against women. Because guess what, statistically I was speaking to at least one victim of sexual assault. And while I don't know the statistics for domestic violence off the top of my head, there was a possibility I was also speaking to someone who grew up in a home with domestic violence going on around them. I've had panic attacks before. The last thing I want to do is induce one in another person by accident and if literally all it involved was warning people the same way I might that a floor is slippery or that one toilet is out of toilet paper then so fucking what. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of criticism from other people or freedom from counter-protest. I
Too many people today are too hyper-sensitive about politically correct language and thought. Forget the band-aids and just get on with life. Can't stand an implicit criticism? Can't tolerate some offense? Well, compare your perspective to a soldier in Afghanistan who just returned from a 10 mile patrol in the hot sun. Wusses have no basis for complaint. No sympathy from many of us if your eggs are too runny or if your coffee is too weak. Or, return to the 18th Century for a day and renew your authentic education about human existence.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments