Political Correctness Then and Now

Political correctness is a very hot topic among society today, especially in universities across America. “The Coddling of the American Mind” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt touches upon the causes and effects of this social movement. In the 1980s and ’90s, political correctness was discussed in relation to restricting hate speech and “challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives.” In that era, the main idea was equality and unity. Today, political correctness looks very different as “the current movement is largely about emotional well-being.” Terms like “microaggressions” are being used to protect anyone and everyone from any sort of emotional discomfort. As a result, these “safe spaces” aren’t necessarily creating equality more than they are causing “a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up” in fear of being deemed insensitive and offensive. This is having a big effect on education. In many instances, some of the best learning is done where discomfort and debate allow students to think critically for themselves. Now, since there is so much focus on making sure no one gets upset these are no longer useful, flushing one of the oldest and most effective teaching styles down the drain: the Socratic method. The consequence of this is an increasingly large number of students that do not know how to think for themselves effectively making them less prepared for careers where this is necessary.

How Did We Get Here?

When talking about their childhood, my parents often refer to the term “free range” parenting. They grew up in the ’60s and ’70s and said that really the only rule was to be back before sunset. This was common for many children across America at the time but as there was an increase in crime through the ’80s and ’90s with an increase in missing kids, parents became more protective of their own children. Additionally, “many schools cracked down on bullying, implementing ‘zero tolerance’ policies” as a result of horrific events such as the Columbine massacre. All of this was happening in a political environment that was (and still is) becoming more and more partisan. For students that are already extremely stressed out from school, it makes sense that they want more protection from hostile stimuli. Lukianoff and Haidt write, “We do not mean to imply simple causation, but rates of mental illness in young adults have been rising, both on campus and off, in recent decades. … Students seem to be reporting more emotional crises; many seem fragile, and this has surely changed the way university faculty and administrators interact with them.” I have to agree with this statement that students are becoming more sensitive. Personally, I see both sides of what Lukianoff and Haidt are trying to portray. To a certain extent, yes, I think that as a society we should be aware of what we say and try to end the cycle of negative preconceived notions we hold about people different than us whether it be race, gender, etc. Schools should provide this space for growth. But ultimately, as a result of zero-tolerance policies, there is no room for growth. In my experience, students and faculty are required to be aware of everyone’s struggles at all times and I see this ideal being pushed upon people so intensely that it’s causing the opposite of the intention: division.

Connection to Dweck

I believe that Carol Dweck’s TED talk about using a growth mindset can be used to address the hostility and division that is occurring in schools across America. Having a growth mindset is not only useful for being a good academic student, but it also allows for everyone to understand the society around them. In contrast to the “free-range” childhood, parents are now extremely involved in their kids’ growth. “In a variety of ways, children born after 1980—the Millennials—got a consistent message from adults: life is dangerous, but adults will do everything in their power to protect you from harm, not just from strangers but from one another as well.” As well as protecting from physical harm, parents are “protecting” their children from emotional harm by telling what to think about social issues. This includes topics about race, gender, politics, religion, and many more. When these beliefs are challenged in an academic or social setting, children and young adults are not necessarily defending their own beliefs as much as they are defending their parents. Dweck talks about the practice of “praising wisely” which promotes kids to “engage in their effort, their strategies, their focus, their perseverance, [and] their improvement.” This is very important when discussing sensitive topics because it promotes kids to engage in discussion with an open mind. In turn, these discussions can allow for students to see how someone with a different opinion is thinking which eliminates the “me versus them” dynamic.