Episode 58
Jonathan Haidt | Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces, and the Coddling of the American Mind
Episode 58
Jonathan Haidt
Jonathan Haidt | Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces, and the Coddling of the American Mind
summary
On this week’s episode of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Jonathan Haidt about how trigger warnings, safe spaces, and microaggressions are setting up the iGeneration for failure on America’s college campuses.
In the Fall of 2013, the President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Greg Lukianoff, noticed that something odd was happening on America’s college campuses. Words were increasingly being seen as dangerous.
A series of strange reports began to emerge of undergraduates asking for threatening material to be removed from the college curriculum. By the Spring of 2014, The New York Times began reporting on this trend, including demands that school administrators disinvite speakers whose ideas students found offensive. But what was most concerning, beyond the sensitivity and the heckling, were the justifications being put forward by these undergraduates. They were claiming that certain kinds of speech interfered with their ability to function, jeopardizing their mental health and making them “feel unsafe.”
In one case, students at Columbia University argued that professors teaching core curriculum classes, which included the works of Ovid, Homer, Dante, Augustine, Montaigne, and Virginia Woolf, should issue “trigger warnings” when reading or assigning passages that might be interpreted as threatening. All of this prompted the publication of an article by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt that made the cover of the Atlantic Magazine in the summer of 2015. The article was titled “The Coddling of the American Mind.” In it, the two chronicled what they believed was happening on college campuses, including the emergence of what are termed, “trigger warnings,” “microaggressions,” and “safe spaces.” Little did Greg Lukianoff or Jonathan Haidt know that in the two years following the article’s publication, all hell would break loose at America’s universities.
In the fall of that year protests over issues of racial injustice erupted on dozens of campuses around the country. Amid these protests arose, however, a series of bizarre incidents leading to the resignations of several highly regarded professors and deans at some of the country’s most progressive universities. This included the physical assault of a professor at Middlebury College by the name of Allison Stanger, who was required to undergo six months of physical therapy and rehabilitation.
Perhaps the most bizarre case, however, is that of Evergreen State College in Washington State. In the spring of 2017, the college announced a “Day of Absence” where white students and faculty were expected to stay away from the school. In a letter of protest, biology professor Bret Weinstein refused to leave the college campus, leading to a series of frightening incidents of unrest where campus police became concerned for Weinstein’s physical safety, eventually leading to his resignation in September of last year.
This week, on Hidden Forces, Jonathan Haidt joins us for a conversation on trigger warnings, safe spaces, and how good intentions and bad ideas are setting up the iGeneration for failure. Jonathan and Greggory Lukianoff’s latest book, The Coddling of the American Mind, is now available in bookstores nationwide.
Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas
Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou
Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod
bio
Jonathan Haidt is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Righteous Mind, and is one of the most cited intellectuals in the media. A professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business, Haidt is also the founder of Heterodox Academy, an organization consisting of some of the nation’s most respected professors that are committed to viewpoint diversity in higher education. He’s been named a “top global thinker” by Foreign Policy magazine, and his TED talk on moral foundations of liberals and conservatives has been viewed over 2.6 million times.
Twitter: @JonHaidt
Website: thefire.org
transcript
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Consequentia exquirere, quoad sit id, quod volumus, effectum. Rhetorice igitur, inquam, nos mavis quam dialectice disputare?
Is ita vivebat, ut nulla tam exquisita posset inveniri voluptas, qua non abundaret. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Qui est in parvis malis. Illum mallem levares, quo optimum atque humanissimum virum, Cn. Sed ille, ut dixi, vitiose.
At enim, qua in vita est aliquid mali, ea beata esse non potest. Quo studio Aristophanem putamus aetatem in litteris duxisse? Est enim tanti philosophi tamque nobilis audacter sua decreta defendere. Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. Non quaeritur autem quid naturae tuae consentaneum sit, sed quid disciplinae. An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse? Nam et complectitur verbis, quod vult, et dicit plane, quod intellegam; Quae in controversiam veniunt, de iis, si placet, disseramus. Nam quibus rebus efficiuntur voluptates, eae non sunt in potestate sapientis.
Quid autem habent admirationis, cum prope accesseris? Quaesita enim virtus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur. Ille enim occurrentia nescio quae comminiscebatur; Itaque rursus eadem ratione, qua sum paulo ante usus, haerebitis. Satis est ad hoc responsum. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Quippe: habes enim a rhetoribus; Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus.
Full Episode
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam; Illa videamus, quae a te de amicitia dicta sunt. Ex ea difficultate illae fallaciloquae, ut ait Accius, malitiae natae sunt. Id Sextilius factum negabat.
Tuo vero id quidem, inquam, arbitratu. Ut placet, inquit, etsi enim illud erat aptius, aequum cuique concedere. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Res enim se praeclare habebat, et quidem in utraque parte. Ut enim consuetudo loquitur, id solum dicitur honestum, quod est populari fama gloriosum. Quid, si reviviscant Platonis illi et deinceps qui eorum auditores fuerunt, et tecum ita loquantur? Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest. At habetur! Et ego id scilicet nesciebam! Sed ut sit, etiamne post mortem coletur? Graece donan, Latine voluptatem vocant. Omnes enim iucundum motum, quo sensus hilaretur.
Ad eas enim res ab Epicuro praecepta dantur. Sed quanta sit alias, nunc tantum possitne esse tanta. An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit? Quo studio Aristophanem putamus aetatem in litteris duxisse? Atqui eorum nihil est eius generis, ut sit in fine atque extrerno bonorum. Praeclare hoc quidem. Tum Quintus: Est plane, Piso, ut dicis, inquit. Si longus, levis. Quod eo liquidius faciet, si perspexerit rerum inter eas verborumne sit controversia. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Hoc dixerit potius Ennius: Nimium boni est, cui nihil est mali. Oculorum, inquit Plato, est in nobis sensus acerrimus, quibus sapientiam non cernimus.
Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster? Et quidem saepe quaerimus verbum Latinum par Graeco et quod idem valeat; Tibi hoc incredibile, quod beatissimum. Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur. Qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum. Dicet pro me ipsa virtus nec dubitabit isti vestro beato M. Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam. Nummus in Croesi divitiis obscuratur, pars est tamen divitiarum.
intelligence report
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. Nec tamen ullo modo summum pecudis bonum et hominis idem mihi videri potest. Claudii libidini, qui tum erat summo ne imperio, dederetur. Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem. Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Certe, nisi voluptatem tanti aestimaretis. Cur post Tarentum ad Archytam? Quid est, quod ab ea absolvi et perfici debeat? Ad corpus diceres pertinere-, sed ea, quae dixi, ad corpusne refers?
Sed quoniam et advesperascit et mihi ad villam revertendum est, nunc quidem hactenus; Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior; Qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum. Quae iam oratio non a philosopho aliquo, sed a censore opprimenda est. Non enim, si omnia non sequebatur, idcirco non erat ortus illinc.
Qui bonum omne in virtute ponit, is potest dicere perfici beatam vitam perfectione virtutis; Tu autem inter haec tantam multitudinem hominum interiectam non vides nec laetantium nec dolentium? Nec tamen ullo modo summum pecudis bonum et hominis idem mihi videri potest. Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Si est nihil nisi corpus, summa erunt illa: valitudo, vacuitas doloris, pulchritudo, cetera. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba.
Respondeat totidem verbis. Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior; Sed potestne rerum maior esse dissensio? Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem. Sed quanta sit alias, nunc tantum possitne esse tanta. Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Quare hoc videndum est, possitne nobis hoc ratio philosophorum dare. Hoc etsi multimodis reprehendi potest, tamen accipio, quod dant.
related episodes
Video
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Atque ab his initiis profecti omnium virtutum et originem et progressionem persecuti sunt. An vero, inquit, quisquam potest probare, quod perceptfum, quod. His singulis copiose responderi solet, sed quae perspicua sunt longa esse non debent. De quibus cupio scire quid sentias.
Facile est hoc cernere in primis puerorum aetatulis. Nullus est igitur cuiusquam dies natalis. Quid, quod homines infima fortuna, nulla spe rerum gerendarum, opifices denique delectantur historia? In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt.
Quae cum magnifice primo dici viderentur, considerata minus probabantur. Neque solum ea communia, verum etiam paria esse dixerunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Itaque quantum adiit periculum! ad honestatem enim illum omnem conatum suum referebat, non ad voluptatem. Est autem a te semper dictum nec gaudere quemquam nisi propter corpus nec dolere. Atque hoc loco similitudines eas, quibus illi uti solent, dissimillimas proferebas. Mihi quidem Homerus huius modi quiddam vidisse videatur in iis, quae de Sirenum cantibus finxerit.
Videmus igitur ut conquiescere ne infantes quidem possint. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Nullus est igitur cuiusquam dies natalis. Vos autem cum perspicuis dubia debeatis illustrare, dubiis perspicua conamini tollere. Quamquam ab iis philosophiam et omnes ingenuas disciplinas habemus; Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Sed non alienum est, quo facilius vis verbi intellegatur, rationem huius verbi faciendi Zenonis exponere. Ergo opifex plus sibi proponet ad formarum quam civis excellens ad factorum pulchritudinem?