As
an introduction to this next part, I want relate another example of how
Politically Correct can show up at our colleges and universities.
College
and university campuses can be behavioral minefields for the unwary, naive, or
even the innocent. This instance still shakes me as I think about it. Years ago
a professor asked me to teach a class while he was out of town attending a
conference. I had done this a few times for other professors and I was always
up for the chance. The lesson was on Benjamin Franklin. We reviewed the
material and he noted one reading, “Advice to a Young Man in Choosing a
Mistress.” I said that I had read it, what about it? “Well, on the first day of
class one of the students came to me and voiced a strong objection to what she
felt was an inappropriate reading. I told her that I expected her to be
prepared and that I would welcome her response when we got to it.” I didn’t
give it too much thought – at the very least a college education should
disturb. But within a minute or two after I introduced myself to the class this
student got up from her desk, grabbed her books, exclaimed as she stormed out,
“I’m not taking any of this!” I was stunned. I followed her out of the classroom
with the idea to calm her down and ask her to re-join the class. She turned
around furious, yelled something I don’t recall and stormed off. But I do
recall the anger in her face and eyes. I went back into the class shaken, the
class less so, and someone said “She’s like that.” I connected with the
professor and he wondered about the worth of university studies for some of our
students.
 |
| Well, Fry’s take is a bit extreme (and blunt)…but what purpose is served in simply crying “I’m offended”? If you’re offended, wouldn’t it make sense to at least try to communicate your offense in a measured, thoughtful exchange of ideas? |
Within
the week I get a call from the university attorney’s office informing me that a
complaint had been made against me for sexual harassment! The attorney was
quite abrupt: the woman was frightened of me (though she had already walked
forty feet away from the classroom door before I got to it – and then must have
overcome her fear because after I resumed our class she came back, disrupted again,
and grabbed a piece of paper she had left on her desk). The attorney informed
me his office would investigate and get back if needed. I called the professor
about it, “What the hell did you do, Bill?” Ahh, though a tenured professor, he
was already distancing himself from the accused harasser, even though we had
known each other for years, for anyone associated with a complaint like this it
could be the kiss of death. Well, that was it, nothing more, no further word –
but what an education for me – a lesson and a moment which faded with time and which
I considered, to my subsequent detriment, an inexplicable anomaly.
What
struck equally strange was that this kind of charge could be made with impunity.
Much like spaghetti, as in the case of this student: “Throw it against the
wall, see if it sticks, if it does, great – if not, no harm done to me.”
Indeed, there was no accountability as to what I considered her outrageous
behavior or her equally outrageous charge – no apology to the class, to the
professor, certainly none to me – I didn’t even get a call from the university
attorney saying there had been no grounds; and surprisingly (or maybe not) no
further comment from the professor – we just didn’t talk about it.
Without
question Franklin’s subject matter irritated the student – though I doubt she
read any more than the title (probably too disturbed); her irritation increased
given that it was included as required reading in the course of study. She was
offended and took what she felt was a justified reaction. But please, I can’t
be the only one who sees the inanity in this, right? Ben Franklin had been
dead for over two hundred years, the professor was out of town, and despite the
fact it wasn’t my class or my syllabus, I was the logical (?) target for her outrage.
I get it. It was certainly a gender specific historical document but in the course
of her drama it had morphed into a modern instance of sexual harassment. And,
again your assistance, how was it possible that a charge like this, patently
groundless, could be thrown out there without any accountability?
Is
there a freedom, an entitlement even, to accuse? I wonder if there is a
parallel in the historical debates regarding freedom of speech. Supreme Court
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. speaking of a “clear and present danger,”
famously remarked, “The most stringent
protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a
theatre and causing a panic.” The danger in this sense was to loss of life; but
what about putting reputations at risk with false accusations? I can hear the
outcry now: how can you possibly equate life to reputation? I understand this
response. However, if one is stripped of the latter how much is the former
worth? A second cry is more telling, though: “Bill, there has to be a
distinction between a ‘wrong accusation’ and a ‘false accusation.’” Correct,
the one is a mistake, the other is a lie. We have to consider the mind-set of
the accuser – as I noted, the young student perceived she was sexually
harassed, in this case she was wrong (yes, I’m giving her the benefit of the
doubt). But (if it wasn’t a malicious lie, but a heartfelt albeit mistaken
charge) how is it possible that she came to this surety?
Something
else has happened in the last few years which might offer a clue. I find
equally unsettling the cry and even demand for “trigger” warnings or
disclaimers – statements which warn the reader, viewer or participant that the
material or topic presented may cause emotional distress or discomfort. PTSD is
real; I don’t need to read articles to know this; friends who have experienced
trauma, mostly in war, have told me. Seldom do they share the event, but rather
how they try to cope. One common mechanism they relate goes something like
this: “Damn, Bill. I’m not stupid. I avoid the chance that this crap could hit
me. It’s getting better, but I’m pretty damned careful.” That sounds
reasonable, doesn’t it?
But
now, it seems, the rest of us are entitled to be warned in our life’s passage
when we will be discomfited, and the rest of society should modify its behavior
to adjust to this concern and eliminate the possibility of causing discomfort –
to anyone. The call for trigger warnings has become pervasive, especially so in
the university environment.
Middlebury
College Professor Laurie Essig relates her introduction to trigger warnings
when she was called out after showing slides of anorexic fashion models in her
Sociology of Gender course. She characterized the demand for warnings “ridiculous”
and observed “I'm treating college students like the adults they are, and
institutions increasingly treat college students like medicalized children.”
But maybe a “trigger” statement would have saved me from the experience with
Ben Franklin? I doubt it. The student knew the topic was disturbing, the
professor knew it, the class knew her feelings, and yet she showed up anyway.
Go figure. But I suspect to protect himself, the professor is now putting
“trigger” warnings on his syllabi. Maybe I should consider one for my classes:
“Warning: this class will require that you think about difficult and unsettling
ideas – please be advised, up your meds.”
I
am heartened, nonetheless, with the recent debates regarding the push to sanitize
and homogenize our universities with the Politically Correct and stifle
conversations and topics which some consider “triggers.” In an article
published in the Penn Spectrum – note these remarks by Provost Vincent Price
welcoming a new freshman class (also a note to any clubbers reading this: the
word “freshman” was used by the
female editor). Keep in mind that at the moment his is the minority position:
At Penn you will find much to love. You will
also encounter ideas you might not. They may seem outlandish, offensive, or
just plain wrong. You may be confused at some point. Embrace that
confusion. A thoughtful stranger welcomes uncomfortable situations and
disagreeable opinions. It is through this very discomfort that we learn
the true value of intellectual freedom: Not just the ability but the absolute
necessity to challenge our assumptions of what we know.
But
let’s get back to this student’s perception and this “trigger warning” tie-in. If
a parent constantly berates a child a liar or a thief, I doubt anyone would be
surprised if the child becomes one upon adulthood. Too much has been written
about the power of affirmation, negative or positive, on the individual psyche
to dispute this, at least I think. In an environment filled with warnings that
such-and-such can cause emotional discomfort and if I weren’t having these
feelings I might start to wonder “What am I missing? What the hell is wrong
with me? Ahh, I better get in touch with my feelings.”
Are you familiar with the term “emotional
reasoning”? I had heard of this in my last few years at the university – my
first reaction was it must be a joke, an oxymoron, something akin to “original
copy,” “accurate estimate,” “beyond infinity,” etc. But nope, it’s real and
another up-and-coming topic in education.
In
an article in last September’s The
Atlantic Weekly, “The Coddling of America’s Mind,” the authors observed:
Burns defines emotional reasoning as
assuming “that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really
are: ‘I feel it, therefore it must be true.’ ” Leahy, Holland, and McGinn
define it as letting “your feelings guide your interpretation of reality.” But,
of course, subjective feelings are not always trustworthy guides; unrestrained,
they can cause people to lash out at others who have done nothing wrong.
Therapy often involves talking yourself down from the idea that each of your
emotional responses represents something true or important.
Emotional reasoning dominates many campus
debates and discussions. A claim that someone’s words are “offensive” is not
just an expression of one’s own subjective feeling of offendedness. It is,
rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong.
It is a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some authority for
committing an offense.
Does
this shift to emotional reasoning sound healthy to you? I pulled up another
definition:
Emotional reasoning is a
cognitive process that occurs when a person believes that what he or she is
feeling is true regardless of the evidence. For example, from a feeling of
jealousy concluding that one's spouse is being unfaithful. Emotional reasoning
amplifies the effects of other cognitive distortions.
Great, so now another bit on cognitive distortions:
Cognitive distortions are simply ways that
our mind convinces us of something that isn’t really true. These inaccurate
thoughts are usually used to reinforce negative thinking or emotions — telling
ourselves things that sound rational and accurate, but really only serve to
keep us feeling bad about ourselves.
Take
pause and consider the two questions I posited in the earlier post: Critical
Thinking begins with “Why do I think the way I do.” Followed by “Why do I
continue to think the way I do?”
Hmm,
I have to confess that in the wake of my classroom experience and the
subsequent sexual harassment charges I simply could not believe that the
student knowingly lied to the university attorney’s office – as I said, I have
to give her the benefit of the doubt, can’t help it. Certainly her feelings
were real; her offence was real; and no question about her outrage. On the
other hand, she was mistaken – her feelings were not reality, there was no
harassment. If it had been my class, my student, I would have requested
(demanded?) some dialogue with her (probably with a trauma counselor in tow)
just to make sure that she felt safe to be in the classroom and me safe with
her there. But then again I still wonder, why did she even show up for the
lecture? And why did she come back so quickly to the place of her trauma? After
all this time, I still can’t make any sense of it, except to conclude that in a strange way she gained some kind of benefit – to stage or create an objectionable moment? to lash out at those she felt personified the root of her discomfort?
Look.
I’m not a psychologist; I’m simply trying to understand the environment which
fosters and validates an individual proclaiming “My feelings are my reality.”
Especially that such a personal conviction could be entertained as true in the course
of one’s progress in higher education (a rigorous task), and in a setting which
demands those attending to think critically. But here I am, years removed and now
in the presence of other highly educated and accomplished people – and I have
the same questions. I have yet to extricate myself completely from those who
embrace this my-feelings-are-my-reality sensibility, and the process has been something
akin to K’s experience in the Kafka novel. Those posts are coming.
A
New Generation:
I
suppose the student considered herself a victim. In the last twenty years or so
much has been written on the topic of victim mentality. Victim mentality is
almost beyond my comprehension. I’m familiar with the idea but I am at a loss
to understand the tendency. Our favorite dictionary resource reads: “Victim
mentality is an acquired (learned) personality trait in which a person tends to
regard him or herself as a victim of the negative actions of others, and to
think, speak and act as if that were the case — even in the absence of clear
evidence.” I’m not sure how helpful this is; but a lot has been written about
it and these words keep popping up: perception, hostility, blame, self-blame,
micro-aggression, psychological need, avoidance, justification, agenda, learned
helplessness, prejudice, bias, stereotype, etc. It’s an up-and-coming
psychological discipline.
Why
would someone take upon themselves the victim label? I’ve met a lot of strong
and successful individuals in business, in education and in politics, and for
the life of me I can’t imagine any one of them happily taking upon themselves
such a self-defining label or even tolerating other people to consider them as
such. Addressing this very strange dynamic Charles Sykes in an early book on the
subject observed “A community of interdependent citizens has been displaced by
a society of resentful, competing, and self-interested individuals who have
dressed their private annoyances in the garb of victimism.”
You
know what? As I read over the last couple of paragraphs I noted a few words
used to define this victim role and considered again why someone would be
inclined (you’re probably three steps ahead of me here): resentful, competing,
self-interest, psychological need, justification…? You’re familiar with
Maslow’s hierarchy; I suspect that no matter what an individual’s psychological
make-up, self-actualization would still be a goal – the attainment of the
highest needs – no other needs beyond. Victimism has a certain appeal: you get
to be one through no fault (or effort) of your own, consequently you have every
right to be resentful and justified in whatever actions you take in striking
back – a pretty powerful position. Victimism is also a bit like a drug: the
subsequent outpouring of pity and sympathy is somewhat akin to being loved (not
quite self-actualization, but close) – of course the former are counterfeits
for the real thing, but in love’s absence (self-love or love from others) these
counterfeits must bring great comfort and great appreciation.
Holy
hell! Hit pause for a moment and let me be clear before you bag and tag me.
There are victims; I’m not talking about the raped, abused, molested, or those
who are beaten down and forcibly kept down. I’m talking about the self-proclaimed
victims. Individuals (or groups) who have gratuitously (even energetically)
appropriated to themselves the “victim” tag.
I
find humorous a recent twist on this – now it seems that “survivor” is
considered the more Politically Correct term. Are we to make a Shoah connection
here? I beg you, join hands and contact the living. In the course of my
graduate studies I had the opportunity to teach Latin at my daughter’s middle
school. At every semester talent show a half-dozen or so sixth graders would
belt out Gloria Gaynor’s iconic “I Will Survive.” The enthusiasm and energy was
infectious – the crowd always went nuts. I am still laughing at a remark one of
the teachers made as we watched, she said, “I am always amazed with the level
of angst these girls can feel in all of their eleven years!” It was quite remarkable.
So,
being a survivor is cool: braver, stronger, happier! And taller! Doesn’t this
smack a little elitist? I’m not going to digress on an examination of the
“survivor mentality,” but isn’t there something wrong here? Is the cancer patient
who lived through the disease really braver or any more courageous than the
patient who died? The word used to mean one who lived through a life
threatening event or simply made it through a difficult moment. Now it seems
that just getting through life is majestic and deserves recognition.
Politically
Correct, Critical Thinking, victimism, emotional reasoning, trigger warnings, my-feelings-are-my-reality
– that’s the environment. I hope you will give these elements due consideration
before the next post. Thanks.
All
my best. XOXO
*****
I
may have mentioned in previous posts that my youngest daughter is a grad
student in Asian Art History. Her interest in art probably had its beginnings at
about eight years old when she and I began trekking off together to visit
museums to see some of the great pieces. I never offered her any “trigger
warnings” and damn it, I don’t remember seeing any. But here are some of our
favorites – in the spirit of the times maybe you can come up with a few
suggestions – I’ll be glad to pass them on. Art can get pretty emotional.
 |
|
Lacoon The Dying Gaul
|
 |
|
Bernini,
Apollo and Daphne Michelangelo, Pieta Donatello, David
|
 |
|
Picasso,
Guernica
|
 |
|
David,
The Death of Marat Goya, The Third of May 1808
|
 |
|
Gericault,
The Raft of the Medusa Van Gogh, Eternity’s Gate
|
Hang
in there, kids. Life is tough.
