The Coddling of the American Mind
Policy Discussions

Lukianoff and Haidt argue that campus policies rooted in safetyism, driven by the three "Great Untruths," prioritize emotional safety over intellectual rigor, harming students' resilience and open dialogue. They critique practices like trigger warnings (e.g., alerts about potentially distressing course content), safe spaces (e.g., designated areas to avoid challenging ideas), and bias-response teams (e.g., administrative units addressing non-criminal offensive speech), which they see as shielding students from discomfort at the expense of free inquiry. These policies often stem from a "common enemy identity politics" approach, which the authors contrast with "common humanity identity politics." Drawing on social psychology, they describe the former as uniting groups against perceived adversaries, framing conflicts as good versus evil, akin to the Bedouin proverb: "Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; me, my brother, and cousin against the stranger." This divisive approach, tied to the third "Great Untruth" (life as a battle between good and evil people), fuels call-out culture and a hostile speech climate on campuses, where fear of anonymous reporting or shaming discourages open expression. By contrast, common humanity identity politics, exemplified by civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., emphasizes shared values and inclusion, advocating for equal dignity while fostering unity. The authors argue that universities should reject policies that enable divisive identity politics and instead adopt frameworks like the Chicago principles on free speech, which prioritize open dialogue and exposure to diverse ideas. They advocate for a trusting "speak up culture" where students and faculty can share opinions without fear of punishment, promoting intellectual progress and emotional resilience.
oulipo:avoid_letter[a]