Over the past several years, one increasingly commonplace phenomenon that has emerged within the university – an institution traditionally revered for its sacred values of thought, inquiry and progress – is the appearance of public protest surrounding events featuring some controversial speaker presenting a lecture, or the like, occasionally resulting in a “disinvitation” of said speaker to the university campus by the academic administration 1, 2, 3. Furthermore, some Western universities, as well as some secondary, middle, and elementary schools, are offering what’s known as a “safe space”4: a region of protection from the threats and discomforts of the broader outside world. These two occurrences, instances drawn out of perhaps several more subtler ones, shed a light on the direction that educational authorities are taking today’s youth – either through direct actions or through permitting a silencing of dissenting perspectives – in addition to the consequences of these seemingly well-meaning initiatives.
Nobody can improve him or herself without stepping outside the comfort zone; this premise is self-evidently echoed across all aspects of meaningful pursuit, whether it be physically growing stronger through exercise, learning a motor skill through hours of repetition, or finally grasping calculus following a fruitful struggle. So why, then, does there exist the belief that sheltering people from discomfort is doing them a service? The claim is not completely unreasonable: one of the primal motivations behind our actions is the seeking of comfort. A man working a 9-to-5 office job may hold a pleasant retirement at the forefront of his goals. Is it not, then, benevolent to grant comfort to others? Is it not beneficial for everyone to be a little more comfortable?
And that’s where the problem lies. In the scenario of shirking from exposure to differing opinions and schools of thought, “a little more” could quickly turn into “too much”. It could even be argued that they’re exactly the same thing: not even wishing to witness the prospect of a challenge, contrary to choosing not to bear it, may be the nail in the coffin which degenerates the adaptable human into a static monstrosity, unable to cope with the naturally changing environment and unpredictable chaos of the external world.
Naturally, a line should be drawn concerning the comforts which should be taken for granted if society is to usefully function; for instance, it’s reasonably maintained in democratic Western states that speaking something shouldn’t result in violence or threat of death. Physical harm is off the table, and for good reason. But what about words: should there be restraints on what people are able to hear? People aren’t allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre or encourage the harm of other individuals, but within the already established constraints of free speech being tolerated given that it doesn’t infringe upon the liberties of others, why should speech be dissected in this context according to how others respond to it?
Speech, a well-established medium through which ideas and opinions are communicated, quickly loses its versatility and usefulness when it’s to be regulated socially, or legislatively, or otherwise. Sometimes, the payoff is worth it, like in the prevention of disorder and chaos from the “crowded theatre” example. Beyond that, if it can’t be tolerated because someone else disagrees – or, in the unequivocally catastrophic scenario, feels offended! – by it, nearly nothing can be spoken at all.
Nobody likes to feel offended, and experiencing such may be worse in today’s age, as compared to the past. Everything is increasing in complexity, naturally, as a function of time: millennia ago, the job title of “engineer” was specific enough to concern dabblings in many mechanical aspects. Now, there are material scientists, structural analysis specialists, and transport systems professionals – among many others5. There’s much more information now than ever before, and an implication of the prevalence of information is the increase in uncertainty within the world’s dealings. Especially for impressionable young people, the external can be overwhelmingly confusing or even incomprehensible at times; it’s rational for a proclivity to seek predictability to manifest in an aversion of uncomfortable new ideas and thoughts. But such an inclination should be satiated through thoughtful consideration and coping with the challenge, instead of fleeing from the prospect of the unknown.
Finally, the actions of student “activists” and administrators who object to the presence of differently-opinioned speakers removes the opportunity presented to willing participants in such events. Making decisions not only for oneself to not attend such an unpleasant dialogue, but for the broader student body as well (assuming that students pay for a challenging education that promotes inquiry, not for inclusion into an echo chamber that tolerates only certain perspectives), carries with it the dangerous and arrogant presupposition that one’s justified in representing and making decisions on behalf of others without any indication of such. The ironic dichotomy that emerges from a combination of failure to consider difficult notions and a complacent temperament, assuming that others want to be just as sheltered as they propose, bears a striking resemblance to the archetypal Oedipal mother: the spirit of the overinvolved maternal figure in Freud’s Oedipal complex, which ultimately cripples the independence and – consequently – competence of the child6. In the West, one archetypal theme of the feminine is that which holds the infant tenderly while stepping on the snake (chaos and danger; in this context, it serves as the uncomfortable.) There’s good biological reason for this: infants are helpless. But children are not infants, and university students certainly aren’t, either; treating them as such when they can act and make decisions strips away their autonomy, and that does not seem like a service to them.
People deal with discomfort by struggling to feel comfortable; acquiring comfort without such adaptation dismantles one’s ability to explore the unfamiliar – and exploring is the price to pay for progress. Sometimes, in the face of overwhelming chaos, immediate certainty is necessary. But if that appears always to be the case…
Look inward.
Image sources: banner
[1] Airaksinen, T. (2018) Students call Christina Hogg Sommers a ‘known fascist’. Ret 30/07/2018 from https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10602
[2] Logue, J. (2016) Uninviting Rap. Ret 30/07/2018 from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/01/gw-disinvites-action-bronson-offensive-lyrics-and-statements
[3]Lavender, P. (2015) Nicholas Dirks, Chancellor of Berkeley: ‘Education is not about making people feel comfortable’. Ret 30/07/2018 from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/nicholas-dirks-davos_n_6505608
[4] CBC News. (2016) Triangle Program, Canada’s only LGBT high school, a safe space for students. Ret 30/07/2018 from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/triangle-program-lgbt-high-school-1.3637733
[5] Mechanical Engineering (2018). Ret 30/07/2018 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_engineering
[6] Peterson, J. B. (2017) Strengthen the Individual. Ret 30/07/2018 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UL-SdOhwek