Are Campus Colleges Becoming Too Sensitive Essay Example

who contended that the First Amendment should not protect language that causes emotional harm via sexist or racist stigmatization (Shulevitz). It is fact today that college students in the US are becoming hypersensitive to issues, notions, and words that could give offense or bring about discomfort.

Shulevitz elaborates on the rise of ‘safe spaces’ in universities, which are zones set aside exclusively for persons who might feel offended by others’ comments or tickling conversations that are against their principles. ‘Safe spaces’ are designed to be innocuous gatherings of individuals with similar ideologies who agree to refrain from micro-aggressions so that all can unwind adequately to review the nuances of various issues, for example, a smooth gender identity. Such areas remain safe as long as the parties present adhere to the restrictions (Shulevitz). Shulevitz points out that the “safer space mentality” that is pervading the colleges is, in a sense, limiting freedom of speech by causing students and professors alike to loath saying anything that could hurt others’ feelings. Safe spaces, for one, express the conviction, which is also gaining popularity amongst students, that learning institutions should safeguard them from bombardment by distressing or discomfiting viewpoints.

They also insinuate the idea that other areas are unsafe. Consequently, students increasingly worry that pieces of writing or acts of speech could jeopardize their emotions (Shulevitz), which is not a desirable development in them. Shulevitz concludes by reiterating the fact that though the whole notion of making colleges safer may seem beneficial to those who are hypersensitive, it is nonetheless retrogressive and damaging not only to them but other persons as well. It rids the college of its functionality, which is

to sharpen wits and prepare people to stand in the future trial in life.

It narrows down, rather than broaden, the students’ field of vision. It insulates, instead of exposing the scholars to unfamiliar ideas that will enable them to learn the discipline of perceiving the world from other people’s points of view. It fails to make them ready for the intellectual and social headwinds that are soon to hit them the very moment they set foot out of the campus cocoon (Shulevitz). In this regard, one can make an inquiry, which is also a genuine concern about what these “hypersensitive people” will do when the opinions that they have so much shrunk from getting into their ears. The increasing use of the word “trauma” to exaggerate situations so that they seem more horrific, and the need of miniature infantries comprising student-life deans, mental health counselors, and so on amongst the current breed of students is accomplishing nothing more than augmenting self-infantilization. Parents, too, could share in the blame for they cushion their kids as they develop instead of allowing them to experience the challenges and risks that promote maturity (Shulevitz).

Kipnis, on the other hand, dwells on the idea of increasing sexual paranoia within US colleges. She raises several critical concerns and explains that a transition has somehow taken place in the US campuses. Her primary issues of concern are the rules set up to contain sexual harassment, which, rather than accomplishing their intended purpose, they merely infantilize students. She expounds that these rules not only take away people’s freedom but are also an intellectual embarrassment to the college fraternities. Students, and more so the ladies,

are like traumas waiting to happen. Regardless of context, they are deemed innocent in any conflict between them and their professors on sexual matters.

The professors, on the other hand, are increasingly being perceived as ravenous wolves lurking by and waiting for the appropriate moment to pounce on the quarry. They are always the guilty party in any case involving student-professor intimacy. This increasing lack of prudence is appalling. Kipnis expresses concern about how such a delicate breed of students will handle the rough life without the confines of colleges. She explains that such an education is not appropriate for such a generation (Kipnis).

Kipnis relates her campus days when professor and students could freely date each other. There were no prohibitory rules. The consequence of such relations is seen in the many samples of “mixed” couples today. There was no AIDS and no harsh repercussions for such associations (Kipnis).

Professors and the institutions were not perceived to be too powerful and the students too helpless. However, this view has morphed since that time. The latest version of campus policy makes it seem as though the power of the institution and the innate danger of coercion are just so great between students and instructors that no intimacies, dating, and romance can be permitted, even within departments. The relations between professors and graduates are also deemed problematic, and their reporting is mandated. Students now have the power to derail the career of their professors in as much as the professors can also do likewise to them (Kipnis).

Kipnis sums up her article by pointing out that feminism in her time underscored independence and resilience. On the contrary, today it revolves

around student vulnerability and any questions raised to challenge its applicability in the current context is deemed antifeminism or worse (Kipnis). She alleges that all the novel codes that are supposedly intended to curb sexual harassment are hypocritical and intellectually embarrassing. They only steal our freedoms.

She believes that this method of working produces pacifying, cowering citizens of whom we happen to be the victims. She outlines that the most appropriate way to prevent sexual assaults is by prohibiting fraternities and hiring couples instead of competent single men and women (Kipnis). I concur with all her sentiments. Several comedians further reiterate the idea of the increased sensitivity of college students. One such comedian is Jerry Seinfeld, who outlined in a radio interview that comedians were shunning campuses for fear of reprisals over political correctness. Seinfeld stated that the younger generation was unaware of the meanings of words such as racist or sexist that they use frequently.

The fact also that he receives warnings from his acquaintances in the general public not to venture into campuses is evidence that the appalling condition of college students is a well-known fact in the United States. Furthermore, Seinfeld explains that his 14-year daughter is apparently indoctrinated in the same line of thought (Schramm). This trend is an indicator that there will be a grand shift in thinking soon. Chris Rock, another famous comedian, also comments on the students’ social views and their unwillingness to offend anyone. He believes that the culture in which the current breed of students is being raised prevents them from even doing simple non-malign acts like calling a black person “black” (Schramm).

It appears that US colleges need

a reformation. In another incident at Emory University in Atlanta, some students wrote messages in chalk in support of Donald Trump on campus property. The writings sparked demonstrations for students felt there was an aspect of anti-diversity subtext to the chalking written about Trump (Svrluga). Mr.

Trump, who is the front-runner for the Republican Party, has often made divisive comments about disabled people, Hispanics, and Muslims, which embolden his supporters and offend his critics. Because of such remarks, several sensitive students have come to view him as one who opposes diversity (Svrluga). The backlash that occurred demonstrate the power of a simple piece of chalk today, not to mention that this instrument has for a long time been used by students in different ages to convey various messages, for example, to call attention to meetings amongst other things. Mr.

James Wagner, Emory’s president, tried to calm the aggrieved parties by adopting a neutral ground and not siding with the offended students to show that they have to be more realistic (Svrluga). Newt Gingrich too expressed concern over the fact that students were becoming quite edgy and needed to steel themselves (Svrluga). These sentiments are entirely accurate. Both Shulevitz and Kipnis point out that the idea of making colleges safer is doing nothing more than taking away freedoms in these institutions as well as infantilizing the students as well as causing them to be unprepared to meet the harsh life that awaits them out of campus. In a nutshell, it does the exact opposite of thing it is intended to do (Kipnis; Shulevitz). Kipnis further expounds that the new rules that are supposedly meant to contain sexual harassment

encourage prejudice.

She believes that all these new codes are not only pretentious but also intellectually embarrassing. She points out that banning fraternities and hiring couples instead of competent single men and women can do more to prevent sexual assaults (Kipnis). I concur with the both Shulevitz and Kipnis’ sentiments for the situation in our colleges is indeed wanting. Students need to steel themselves up for life and quit being wimps. They will not stand for truth in the future if they continue on this path, and for sure that will be quite appalling. Having a population of grown-up “babies” is quite dangerous for they can be manipulated easily.

For this reason, I believe that US colleges need to have several kinds of reforms including health, diet, and even dress reforms amongst others, which are fundamental in preparing the students to stand for truth in life.

Conclusion

To sum it all, it is indeed true that college students in the US are becoming more sensitive to both social and intellectual headwinds that bombard them because the educational curriculum pre-programs and engineers them to be so to fit the requirements for admission into colleges. This condition is quite dangerous for it makes the students be like kids instead of hardening them for the harsh life after campus. Also noteworthy is that this state is a well-known fact throughout the United States. It is true that happiness cannot be attained by causing others to conform to one’s ideas.

The single, biggest step in rectifying this problem will have to involve the federal government, which should release these institutions from sanctions and unreasonable investigations by the Education Department. Congress should redefine

peer-on-peer harassment in a way that will eliminate the impulse to police students’ speeches. A more appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the necessity of making other students feel welcome should be reached in these institutions. Lastly, is that colleges must rethink the values and skills that they want to impart to the new students. If these initiatives are embraced, colleges will rise to their ideal conditions and all will be benefited.

Works Cited

1. Kipnis, Laura. “Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 27 February 2015. Web. 13 May 2016. http://chronicle.com/article/Sexual-Paranoia/190351/
2. Schramm, Michael. “Jerry Seinfeld Says Comedians Avoid College Gigs, Students Are ‘So PC.’” USA Today College. 8 June 2015. Web. 13 May 2016.

   http://college.usatoday.com/2015/06/08/jerry-seinfeld-espn-college-campuses-politically-correct/

3. Shulevitz, Judith. “In College and Hiding from Scary Ideas.” The New York Times. 21 March 2015. Web. 13 May 2016.

   http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=1

4. Svrluga, Susan. “Someone Wrote ‘Trump 2016’ on Emory’s Campus in Chalk. Some Students Said They No Longer Feel Safe.” The Washington Post. 24 March 2016. Web.

   13 May 2016. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/24/someone-wrote-trump-2016-on-emorys-campus-in-chalk-some-students-said-they-no-longer-feel-safe/>