This is not just Stanford. And it’s not just administrators. It’s societal. Jonathan Haidt has written extensively on this. If interested, read “The Coddling of the American Mind”. Haidt talks about “the three great untruths” that we are preaching to our youths:
1. The untruth of fragility: what does not kill us makes us weaker
2. The untruth of emotional reasoning: Always trust your feelings.
3. The untruth of Us vs Them: life is a battle between good and evil people.
This played out recently at Stanford law school. With an eventual outcome that is a credit to the law school.
Stanford’s Federalist Society (a conservative law group) invited a conservative Justice from the 5th Circuit Court to speak. 100 or so law students came to shout him down, Swearing at him. Calling him names. He asked for an administrator to help. The associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion was there. She supported the protesters. Gave a six minute speech entitled “Is it worth the juice”. Essentially, is the “pain” he inflicts on the students by simply being there given his opinions worth letting him speak.
After the episode the Law School Dean wrote a 10 page letter. She made it abundantly clear that this should not have happened and will not happen again. These are law students. They should be protecting speech. This was a violation of Stanfords codes. The administrator that assisted the students is on administrative leave. She made it clear that diversity included the diversity of opinions. A terrific and powerful response. One any Stanford law school grad should be proud of.
The “protestors” fit directly into Haidt’s three great untruths. And therein lies part of the problem. Many students on the one hand, demand safe spaces, talk of trigger warnings, engage in call out culture. Yet on the other are distressed when the University reacts by imposing draconian rules on social activities. Because the administrators either agree with or are cowed by these attitudes.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t demand to be coddled on the one hand and then react when you in fact, are.
1. The untruth of fragility: what does not kill us makes us weaker
2. The untruth of emotional reasoning: Always trust your feelings.
3. The untruth of Us vs Them: life is a battle between good and evil people.
This played out recently at Stanford law school. With an eventual outcome that is a credit to the law school.
Stanford’s Federalist Society (a conservative law group) invited a conservative Justice from the 5th Circuit Court to speak. 100 or so law students came to shout him down, Swearing at him. Calling him names. He asked for an administrator to help. The associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion was there. She supported the protesters. Gave a six minute speech entitled “Is it worth the juice”. Essentially, is the “pain” he inflicts on the students by simply being there given his opinions worth letting him speak.
After the episode the Law School Dean wrote a 10 page letter. She made it abundantly clear that this should not have happened and will not happen again. These are law students. They should be protecting speech. This was a violation of Stanfords codes. The administrator that assisted the students is on administrative leave. She made it clear that diversity included the diversity of opinions. A terrific and powerful response. One any Stanford law school grad should be proud of.
The “protestors” fit directly into Haidt’s three great untruths. And therein lies part of the problem. Many students on the one hand, demand safe spaces, talk of trigger warnings, engage in call out culture. Yet on the other are distressed when the University reacts by imposing draconian rules on social activities. Because the administrators either agree with or are cowed by these attitudes.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t demand to be coddled on the one hand and then react when you in fact, are.