Colleges campuses, once a beacon for progressive reforms, stimulating discussions, and engaging debates, recently have been scrubbed clean of language that may be perceived as offensive or hurtful to minority students through the use of speech codes. Speech codes seek to protect the mental health of college students, and punish harassment that occurs on campus, however because of their ambiguous wording, they have been stretched to censor unpopular opinions and important discussions. By protecting students from all words or displays that may cause offense, colleges are not adequately preparing students for life in the working world, and inadvertently presenting students with a sheltered and unchallenged world view. In an attempt to create “safe
…show more content…
A microaggression is characterized as a seemingly minor or harmless offense, often unintentional, that threatens validity of a minority students struggle. Examples of microaggressions can include asking a person of color where they are from, referring to oneself as “colorblind” or wearing a culturally insensitive halloween costume. Trigger warnings, on the other hand, are written warnings that precede content taught in classrooms that may be offensive or triggering to students suffering from PTSD. These warnings can be present before a novel, such as “The Great Gatsby” to warn readers of its descriptions of wealth inequality and misogynistic violence, or before descriptions of torture in certain class discussions. Trigger warnings in particular have emerged to protect the wellbeing of students who have been negatively affected by racism, sexism, ableism, cissexism or classism, mainly liberal campuses, and have generated significant opposition from students and professors alike. ( Medina, Jennifer. “Warning: The Literary Canon Could Make Students Squirm” New York Times 18 May 2014) Together, the two terms have contributed to a culture of sensitivity and outrage, where students have been criticized …show more content…
In 2012, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, surveyed 392 schools, finding that “65% maintain severely restrictive speech codes”(Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Rep. ERIC document reproduction service no. ED537000. N.p., 2012. Web. Mar. 2016.) These speech codes vary between each individual college, some targeting all unpopular ideas, while others are specifically aimed at harassment and hate speech. Despite their overwhelming prevalence, speech codes have frequently been ruled unconstitutional by local, state and supreme courts. Codes that have been struck down are frequently criticized for vagueness and ambiguity, that reserves too much power for the judgement of campus authorities and leaves students questioning what may or may not be a violation of the
A microaggression is characterized as a seemingly minor or harmless offense, often unintentional, that threatens validity of a minority students struggle. Examples of microaggressions can include asking a person of color where they are from, referring to oneself as “colorblind” or wearing a culturally insensitive halloween costume. Trigger warnings, on the other hand, are written warnings that precede content taught in classrooms that may be offensive or triggering to students suffering from PTSD. These warnings can be present before a novel, such as “The Great Gatsby” to warn readers of its descriptions of wealth inequality and misogynistic violence, or before descriptions of torture in certain class discussions. Trigger warnings in particular have emerged to protect the wellbeing of students who have been negatively affected by racism, sexism, ableism, cissexism or classism, mainly liberal campuses, and have generated significant opposition from students and professors alike. ( Medina, Jennifer. “Warning: The Literary Canon Could Make Students Squirm” New York Times 18 May 2014) Together, the two terms have contributed to a culture of sensitivity and outrage, where students have been criticized …show more content…
In 2012, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, surveyed 392 schools, finding that “65% maintain severely restrictive speech codes”(Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Rep. ERIC document reproduction service no. ED537000. N.p., 2012. Web. Mar. 2016.) These speech codes vary between each individual college, some targeting all unpopular ideas, while others are specifically aimed at harassment and hate speech. Despite their overwhelming prevalence, speech codes have frequently been ruled unconstitutional by local, state and supreme courts. Codes that have been struck down are frequently criticized for vagueness and ambiguity, that reserves too much power for the judgement of campus authorities and leaves students questioning what may or may not be a violation of the