Why Campuses Have Become Timid

You’ve heard the lament: College campuses these days have become intellectual hothouses; students force teachers and administrators to crush any hint of controversial thinking; students insist on atmospheres purged of ideas that might upset them. In the new issue of The Atlantic, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt offer an analysis of the phenomenon. But why didn’t they invite a historian to their party? For two smart guys, their answers are sadly shorn of any of the historical context that best explains our current “snowflake” syndrome.

The authors review the recent happenings on college campuses. Professors complain that they are muzzled and beleaguered. Students who offend are crushed under the bootheels of climate enforcers. Comedians no longer perform on college campuses.

Macro-aggressions . . .

Macro-aggressions . . .

Instead of feisty arenas in which a universe of ideas battle ferociously, some college campuses have become daycare centers at naptime, the authors charge. Why?

The recent trend toward what Haidt and Lukianoff call “vindictive protectiveness,” they argue, results from generational trends. Today’s college students grew up wearing helmets everywhere. They grew up on Facebook; they grew up in an era of vicious partisan polarization. The results, they conclude, are more than sad. They are scary portents of the ways campuses have pushed students to think in negative ways.

All these things make sense, but they ignore the obvious explanation from the history of higher education itself. Instead of as a psychological “vindictive protectiveness,” an historian of higher ed might explain today’s student activism as an exhibition of “insurgent inclusionism.”

Today’s sometimes-excessive zeal for inclusionism might be traced most immediately to campus tumults of the 1960s. To take examples only from my home state of New York, battles at Columbia, Cornell, and City College of New York all laid the historic seeds for today’s campus activism.

At Columbia, student leftists took over the administration building and helped set a precedent that evil lurked incarnate behind the carved doors of deans’ offices. At Cornell, students demonstrated that no excess of violence would be too much in order to promote their agenda. At CCNY, the very structure of the school itself was turned on its head.

These were all very different episodes, but all of them set the precedent for student moral activism. The good guys in every case were those who were willing to go to any extreme—even shotgun-wielding threats—to create “inclusive” atmospheres.

The moral definitions were established. Those who resorted to extreme measures to promote more egalitarian campuses, places more welcoming to non-white, female, and underrepresented students were the good guys. Those who resisted were the bad guys.

These days, talk of “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” seems an obvious historical development of that moral logic. Insurgent inclusionism dictates extreme tactics to be sure that no historically underrepresented group is left out. Why do student activists take such extreme measures against “microaggressions?” Because such things are seen as the latest flowering of white, male campus elitism.

Haidt and Lukianoff are likely aware of this obvious historical trajectory. I understand that they are mainly interested in other questions. Furthermore, I’m a fan of Haidt’s work. I considered it a big compliment when a recent reviewer planned to teach a culture-war class using my recent book along with Haidt’s Righteous Mind. As a psychologist, however, Haidt seems to ignore the obvious historical logic for our current campus climate, and that historical logic is important.

Without it, it’s easy to get caught up in the alarmist tone of the article. As I’ve argued before, today’s campuses are not as monotonous and timid as these sorts of articles imply. We should not tremble at the thought that student activists are up in arms for moral causes—even if we disagree with the tenor of their protests.

Campus activists these days consciously model themselves on the strident moralism of their 1960s ancestors. Do some of their protests verge into the merely silly? Yes. But overall, the logic of their protests has developed from the best traditions of student activism.

We don’t need to define away student protests as psychologically suspect.

Advertisements
Leave a comment

6 Comments

  1. I like that description “insurgent inclusionism.”

    It fits very well. While it is overdone, I’m not seeing any need for serious concern. It is, perhaps, a reaction to the tribalism that we so often see in the culture wars.

    Reply
  2. Patrick

     /  August 13, 2015

    You wrote, “Why do student activists take such extreme measures against ‘microaggressions?’ Because such things are seen as the latest flowering of white, male campus elitism.” What I always wonder is whether activists today are genuinely offended by things like microaggressions, or if they have invented the concept as a means of fighting what they see as a just battle against the forces of backwardness. Tracing the historical trajectory the way you do–unless I am reading too much into it–seems to be evidence for the latter. Insofar as this is a struggle for power, campus radicals will find little to gain nowadays by toting guns, but much to gain by playing the victim. The primary problem then is not that students are coddled too much, but that they are given incentive to gain the power and influence they have always sought (and the opportunity to impugn those who get in the way of their agenda) by always looking for new ways to be offended. Would you go that far in your analysis?

    Reply
    • Patrick,
      I don’t think it’s an either/or. I think many student activists these days (and their non-student sympathizers) manage to BECOME genuinely offended by microaggressions BECAUSE it is a means of fighting what they see as a just battle against the forces of backwardness. Historically, the gun-toting campus radicals of the 1960s–at Cornell at least–were also playing the victim. In the fascinating Cornell case, African American students and their allies responded to a cross burning on campus by occupying Straight Hall. Get this: They were attacked by pro-status-quo white fraternity members, who hoped to eject them forcibly. Only then did the African American students arm themselves with rifles and shotguns. The language of student activists at the time was both aggressive and self-pitying. I think this is the same basic phenomenon as today’s “insurgent inclusionism.”
      With apologies to my student friends, I do indeed think that some activists are “always looking for new ways to be offended.” And sometimes it gets kooky. But in the big picture, I think such zeal is preferable to the vast majority of students who are only always looking for new ways to entertained. At least insurgent inclusionists have some sense of moral compulsion. As with the Protestant fundamentalist activists I study from the 1920s, I do not usually agree with their worldviews or strategies, but I respect them as sincere and devoted individuals.

      Reply
  3. It’s true that “Insurgent inclusionism dictates extreme tactics to be sure that no historically underrepresented group is left out.” But it’s equally true that people and ideas from other groups are aggressively ostracized, and would be extirpated if insurgent inclusionism had its way.

    The notion that what’s happening today could by any stretch of the imagination possibly be called INclusionism, is simply not a reality-based concept.

    A much more accurate term would be “insurgent exclusionism.”

    Reply
  4. I’ve been following Corey Robin’s commentary on the debacle at UIUC where timidity does not seem to be on display. (Multiple knockdowns on both sides so far.) His posts about the chancellor’s firing came just ahead of yours in my weekly WordPress digest, so it’s hard to buy this argument about the tyranny of climate enforcers. UVA went through a similar “feisty arena” conflict last year.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s