Ben Franklin stated that “Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both”. In one form or another our society embraces censorship whether it’s intentional or not in order to ensure safety. Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. However the main contradiction is between the idea of safety and freedom.
Which arises the question: Is it possible to be safe and free simultaneously? According to the English Oxford dictionary, safety is the state f being protected from or guarded against hurt or injury; freedom from danger; but how do we depict what hurts others? Not everyone is effected in the same way so how is that deciphered? In the articles “The Coddling of the American Mind” and “The Rise of Victimhood Culture” both describe forms of self-censorship.
However, “The Codling of the American Mind” conveys that within education, students themselves are enacting self censorship by demanding trigger warnings in education. This article provides an example: “Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about aw students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law-or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. Although the subject is very difficult one, why bypass the opportunity to learn in order to prevent yourself from feeling distress?
The article “The Rise of Victimhood Culture”, enriches us on the era that our society has become to embrace; Victimhood culture which is the use of victimhood to exaggerate the agency of others and to assign greater responsibility to them. This article lso gives an example: “Last fall at Oberlin College, a talk held as part of Latino Heritage Month was scheduled on the same evening that intramural soccer games were held.
As a result, soccer players communicated by email about their respective plans. Hey, that talk looks pretty great,” a white student wrote to a Hispanic student, “but on the off chance you aren’t going or would rather play futbol instead the club team wants to go!! ” The Hispanic student was greatly offended by the email and decided to respond back. However instead of privately engaging in a conversation with the “offender”, she decided to publicly air he conversation on Oberlin Microaggressions; a blog for students who have been marginalized, hoping to provoke sympathy and antagonism towards the emailer. Engaging in what we call Victimhood Culture.
The article also claims that “the culture on display on many college and university campuses, by way of contrast, is “characterized by concern with status and sensitivity to slight combined with a heavy reliance on third parties. People are intolerant of insults, even if unintentional, and react by bringing them to the attention of authorities or to the public at large. Domination is the main orm of deviance, and victimization a way of attracting sympathy, so rather than emphasize either their strength or inner worth, the aggrieved emphasize their oppression and social marginalization. Due to the fact that people are so sensitive of their feelings, they they will enact violence or attract sympathy to feel of self worth.
Why do we need others to determine our worth of us. Why do we feel the need to lash out in order to be heard? Why is it that we let our emotions get the best of us and project such a behavior in order to safe? The article “Free Speech Under Attack”, claims that speaking out is ecoming more dangerous and that curbs on free speech have grown tighter. “Without the contest of ideas, the world is timid and ignorant. Knowledge is extremely important, and why is it that we would rather be safe than knowledgeable.
“Since offence is subjective, the power to police it is both vast and arbitrary”. Because people want to refrain from being emotionally hurt or marginalized the demand for safety is growing larger and larger, decreasing our elasticity of freedom. “The article also states that t”he mission is impossible if uncomfortable ideas are off-limits”. If controversial topics are rased and restricted from society what happens to the level of freedom we have? We desire to be free but also safe how do both of those ideas correlate?
The University of California suggests that it is a “racist microaggression to say that “America is a land of opportunity” due to the fact that it could be taken to imply that those who do not succeed only have themselves to blame. Is that a true statement? Do we only have ourselves to blame or do we all have predestined futures awaiting us? Many of these controversial issues have to deal with the way people perceive situations. Could that be the underlying issue here? The article claims that the ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable.
How we going to make a place where their soley purpose is to provide education and train us to open our minds to new observations and arise to a high level of critical thinking a safe space? Not only that but how can we make college a safe space for everyone when each and everyone of us has a mind of their own. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You ight call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse”.
Is this what we want for the future of our country? Although we have already reached this state in this point in time, do we really want our society to transcend into an era where everything that you say is monitored just to ensure safety? A safe space is a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other motional or physical harm. However, there are incidences where safe spaces do the exact opposite. Such as make other groups feel marginalized by engaging in forms of discrimination and intolerance.
For example, On UC Berkeley’s campus there was a protest held where students are demanding for safe spaces for transgenders and spaces of color but while doing so they are harassing caucasian students trying to study, barring their path across a key bridge while allowing only students of color safe passage. This goes against what a safe space’s purpose is. So, how do we make everywhere a safe place for veryone while maintaining freedom? Is it possible to be safe and free simultaneously? Not necessarily, our society is too dependent of the idea of feeling safe.
So the need for microaggressions, trigger warnings and safe spaces are vital to our society. Safe spaces is escape from one’s reality of the world by covering up all the negative aspects that are unwanted memories. The idea of trigger warnings dilute our sense of educational and intellectual stability due to the fact that new ideas and controversial issues arise depression and anxiety within students. Not only that the new way of eaching “may be teaching students to think pathologically” and may be doing more harm than good.
The Coddling of the American Mind” states that morality binds and blinds. A lot of the decisions we make has morality as the primary source. However, that can interfere with our abilities to think critically. Also, social media makes it easy to join crusades, express solidarity and outrage, an shun traitors. Everywhere around use influences freedom of expression but when it comes to the point where someone else can get hurt, there is the need for someone to be punished for it so that others can feel safe and justified.
