The Coddling Of The American Mind Analysis

In The Coddling of the American Mind, logos used throughout the article. Logos is an appeal to logic from the author, and is a way of persuading an audience by reason. One logos example is the different generation statement the article provided. Childhoods has changed a significant amount during the past generation. The generation growing up before and a little after the 80’s remember riding their bicycles around their hometowns, unsupervised by adults, by the time they were 8 or 9 years old. In the hours after school, kids were expected to keep themselves busy and learn from their OWN mistakes. They made this claim because parents from this generation are more protective about their children. It is hard to see kids out in the streets riding

In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.

Buddhists and Stoics from the past always believed in reducing attachments, thinking more clearly, and finding release from emotional torments (Lukianoff and Haidt 6). Today, many college students believe in the opposite. In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt discuss the new surge of microaggressions, trigger warnings, and policy changes being made on college campuses throughout the United States. College students who are attempting to block themselves from all offensive matters and are having people punished for microaggressions are, in my opinion, ridiculous. I believe the use of cognitive behavioral therapy is the best way to handle triggers and offenses, and college students need to stop

“Free Inquiry? Not on Campus” by John Leo is an important essay that shows exactly how important it is to protect people's political views and opinions. In Leo's essay, he elaborates how times have changed and how we live in more of a liberal left-wing society and because of this everyone has to be more politically correct. Leo talks about the social change universities and colleges on how they used to promote free speech, but now are more like the speech police telling us what's opinions you should have on any given subject and any other opinion is considered wrong. Leo gives an example of this and writes “in October 2007, for instance, a student mob stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down speeches by two members of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration group.The students shouted they have no right to

“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” (Lukianoff and Haidt 44). Colleges are sheltering their students from words and ideas that students do not like or are found to be offensive. Affecting their education and cognitive skills, scientists are warning colleges to refrain from coddling the students and allowing other viewpoints to be spoken. People are speaking their minds, saying their own views; however, some people are over sensitive and take these viewpoints offensively. In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt successfully argues using rhetorical questions, specific examples, and affective visuals that protecting college students from words and ideas deteriorates their education and mental health.

​"Education is the movement from darkness to light". In The Closing Of The American Mind, by Allan Bloom, Bloom argues that higher education has been drastically modified over the years and has ruined the psyche of today 's students. Once upon a time Americans dreamed of a better and brighter future, one that could transport them into a perfect utopia of societal bliss. Higher Education was the enthralling stepping stone for happiness. It inspired students to find their voice, while drawing from the past. It was a place where they could make mistakes and change their major once or twice. Today, higher education has become more about the career path and how it is more necessary than before. Higher education is no longer an adventure that allows the student to embark upon a journey of discovery and self-expression as it once was. This is due to the vigorous demands of the general society and how students today are required to maintain focus on a career that is valuable and not adventurous. Basically, we have lost touch with what makes this country so great; the impossible becoming reality. The creativity is gone. The belief that our imagination can grant us happiness if we work hard enough and believe is nonexistent. Higher education has separated the extraordinary and left us with dedicated, intelligent drones working towards the path that pays the most and will always have job security.

In the early 21st century there are many issues that arise within societies. Whether the issues are based on freedoms, rights, or power of government. The way we handle these situations is to look at the US Constitution for guidance as the country tries to figure out a solution. One issue that has been in the mainstream as of late, is freedom of speech, which is the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The controversy surrounding the first amendment comes from whether it should be instituted on college campuses or censored by professors and administrators. Ancient philosophers have written about similar issues surrounding censorship in societies and many differ in their beliefs. Plato and Thomas Hobbes would agree that creating an environment

Erwin Chemerinsky describes the main opposing views on this issue in his book Free Speech on Campus, “One derides all efforts to protect students from the effects of offensive or disrespectful speech as “coddling” and “politically correctness.” The other side

Diverse communities in the United States set certain laws to protect their properties from being vandalized with graffiti and protect them from loud noise; rules of this kind should be evenly upheld in order to not discriminate for or against anybody’s opinions or ideas. If the governing authorities see fit to change the laws to prohibit such expressions, they should be cautious. Bok says we are faced with the main example of, the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to have a community founded on mutual respect. Bok shows that power of

Former president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, in his essay, “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” published in the Boston Globe, addresses the topic of protection and regulation of freedom of expression on college campuses and argues that rather than prohibiting the expression of offensive speech, it would be better to ignore it. He fails to support his claim by dismissing the emotional discomfort that people might find themselves in, in response to someone’s offensive expressions, and by not being a credible source of information on the topic, but he successfully appeals to the reader by offering logical reasons as to why

In today’s era people are being limited in their freedom of speech because people are too sensitive and it can be offensive.

After reading the article I concur with the author’s views on colleges coddling students who are offended by words or small actions is doing more harm than good. The article covered the issues in detail and gave many examples of the conception before the 1980’s when children could roam free in the world with less worry for parents to where next generation who had more protective parents because of the increase of kidnappings, removal of physical activities in school, school shootings, and bullying after the 1980’s.The authors discuss how coddling is not good for students, society, the workplace, government or the future. Coddling removes cognitive thinking and the use of good critical thinking skills. Coddling will force students to think with emotion instead of logic. Society will not always bend over backwards to appease ones feelings or change to make someone feel comfortable. Thinking with emotions can create a fog that can hinder ones view of reality.

However, many groups claim that political correctness in society is justified in its efforts to sanitize offensive material created though years of oppressing minorities. What was originally a noble idea, to remove blatant words of offensive meaning, has turned into an “over the top” effort to rid any words of possible controversy. We are regulating our ways of plain speaking, freedom of choice, and freedom of speech. Laws of restrictions on slander and public decency should be decided on the common law methodology and not by the interests of the liberal “mob”. If plain speaking is not allowed, clear thinking is

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

George Orwell once famously said ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' This sentence sums up the very essence of free speech; it is, as Orwell believed, the mother of all civil rights. Without the unconditional freedom to offend it cannot exist. Ideas are, more often than not, dangerous things. There is little point in having freedom of speech if it only defends the most popular and innocuous of opinions. The freedom to offend can perpetrate racial, social or religious intolerance; however, conversely, it is also the only means available to fight against such bigotry. Free speech is not something to work towards when the world is ‘better'; it is, rather, the vital tool through