Living and teaching in Albania - and still doing some good: A Club in the Hands of the Politically Correct

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.