The impetus for the flourishing of the "culture of abolition" and "the struggle for social justice" in American universities was given at the time by social networks, from where the ideas of creating digital "safe spaces" without "trolls" migrated to the real world.
Those born in the mid-nineties will probably write off this article with the wording: "Grumbling of an incomprehensible old man from Generation X about evil from social networks." And there will probably be some truth in this: like many others, I spent most of my life without access to portable gadgets with countless applications, add-ons and services - and not because I lived on a desert island or was born into an Amish family, but because that at that time there were no such technologies around. In other words, the youth of Gen X was more influenced by Alexander Graham Bell than Steve Jobs.
Today, the “reality” of those born after 1995, the so-called generation Z, is fundamentally different from the perception of the world of those who were born just ten years earlier, because the former have established close relations with the Internet almost from birth.
It would be naive to assume that this age group, raised by social media, will enter adulthood with the same attitudes, values and worldviews as the previous generation. It is amazing how other people really are!
Since 2014, when Generation Z was just about to pursue higher education, an unusual new phenomenon began to manifest itself in American universities. Traditionally, students are perceived as the most ardent champions of freedom of thought, from whom you would not expect hypocrisy at all; but suddenly they began to rush left and right with vague concepts caught from the Internet, such as "safe spaces", "micro-aggression" or "reaction to triggers."
One of the earliest characteristics of this evolving mentality in 2014 was given by Jenny Jarvey in The New Republic. “What was originally a means of moderating Internet forums to protect particularly vulnerable and mentally unhealthy users, now threatens to shape public debate both online and offline,” she wrote. "The trigger signals not only that the university is beginning to be more careful about words and ideas, but also about general cultural hypersensitivity to resentment and suspicion about its application."
But instead of preparing for the coming tsunami of tears, universities have broken with a thousand-year pedagogical tradition and put the feelings and emotions of bewildered teenagers above the wisdom and logic of teachers. The university world not only failed to stop the flooding, but by virtue of its own ultraliberal bias, exacerbated the problem, blaming the alleged misfortunes of the world on a select group of “guilty”. Most often they were the deceased now white men, representatives of the so-called patriarchy, fattening on the so-called white privilege. And now universities are so overwhelmed with despair and activism that even the rules of mathematics and English grammar are under suspicion.
But perhaps the main victim of these radical changes has been trust between students and educators - something that has been cultivated for centuries. Today's professors are extremely sensitive to the unpleasant circumstance that they can be fired for violating the rules of political correctness with an "offensive" act or statement. And many people are now afraid of inviting speakers to the university who can cause an ambiguous reaction: lest it become a trigger for students and provoke protests.
The intellectual closed world in which American universities now exist reflects the reality in social networks, where users have a steady tendency to communicate only with like-minded people.
As soon as a "troll" appears (annoying a person of other views), it is no more difficult to "cancel" him with his views than to delete him from "friends." There is even a certain status and a sense of moral superiority in “abolishing” a politically incorrect “heretic”.
In 2018, the book "Shushiukanie with the American mind" was published. Its authors, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Greg Lukyanov and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, argue that digital constructs of “safe spaces” have done far more harm than good.
“Social media has channeled the passions of inter-party struggles into a 'culture of blame,'” Lukyanov and Haidt say. "New media platforms and means allow citizens to withdraw into an environment where their innocence is confirmed by itself, and the worst fears about the negative qualities of the opposite side can ... be fanned by extremists and cybertrolls who want to sow discord and division."
According to Lukyanov and Haidt, Generation Z's violent rejection of any information that could cause an ambiguous reaction and even shock means that there is now “more ideological uniformity” in the university environment, which prevents “scientists from seeking the truth, and students from learning from a wide range of thinkers. ", As was traditionally done at the university.
Silly self-important letter by liberals who will sit and watch the world burn rather than turn to their conservative counterparts for help on how to fix it. They think rationale and logic can fix this mess. Nope, won't work.
Plus several signers here have tried to cancel me! https://t.co/kYrDsDEU4q
The fact that the "culture of withdrawal" has in principle been allowed to take root in social media and universities is a problem: the lawn of American society is now overgrown with huge weeds. And although the majority admit that this situation is not good (or at least ugly), the one proposing solutions risks being "canceled" himself.
For example, last month 150 public figures, including Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie and J.K. Rowling, incurred anger and ridicule by signing a letter denouncing the "culture of cancellation." In particular, the letter warned that "limiting the discussion, whether it is carried out by a repressive state or intolerant society, inevitably harms those who have no influence and makes it difficult for all to participate in democracy."
These leftist signatories were not only extremely late with their letter, but they themselves were accused of trying to silence the spokesmen of other views (mostly conservative) with which they did not agree. Others, like Jennifer Finney Boylan, even apologized to the crowd for supporting the timid suggestions in the letter.
The sad irony of fate is that Western civilization, built on the free exchange of ideas, does not even allow to point out problems without incurring contempt and ridicule. The atmosphere of such oppression, happily accepted by ideologues who listen only to the voices in their heads, seriously threaten future progress. If you do not fight such a dangerous new trend and do not take control of the situation, Western civilization, incapable of further development, will eventually "cancel" itself.
The author's Twitter is @Robert_Bridge.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.