The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure

Many colleges and universities have mottos with “truth” or “knowledge” in their mottos, as with Yale’s “Lux et Veritas (‘light and truth’)” (253). The understanding is that these institutions serve a purpose, or telos, of discovering the truth. Many now believe, however, that “the purpose of scholarship is to bring about social change, and the purpose of education is to train students to more effectively bring about such change” (254). If so, then the only “truth” to be found is that which conforms to the goals of social change. Truth, though, is foundational to justice; without it, justice will fail.

Four general principles can guide campuses toward upholding the search for truth. The first—“Entwine Your Identity with Freedom of Inquiry”—includes “a commitment to free speech and academic freedom updated for our age of disinvitations, speaker shoutdowns, and speech codes” (255), especially as outlined in the Chicago Statement from the University of Chicago in 2015. Also important is to “[e]stablish a practice of not responding to public outrage” (256), and to “not allow the ‘heckler’s veto’” (257) that prevents people from speaking or listening.

The second principle—“Pick the Best Mix of People for the Mission”—gives “preference to students who take time off in ways that prepare them for independence” (257), by admitting more who have learned the “intellectual virtues,” and by including “viewpoint diversity” in policies on general diversity (258).

The third principle—“Orient and Educate for Productive Disagreement”—includes rejecting the idea that “[w]hat doesn’t kill you makes you weaker” (258) and emphasizing that “uncomfortable” doesn’t mean “unsafe.” It's important also to avoid the mantra “[a]lways trust your feelings” and instead stress critical thinking. The untruth of “Us versus Them” leads to identity politics instead of inquiry and should be avoided as well.

The fourth principle—“Draw a Larger Circle Around the Community” (260)—emphasizes common goals and shared humanity. This can be accomplished through fostering school spirit, by protecting physical safety with adequate security and consistent punishment of threats and acts of violence so that “students from all backgrounds are safe from physical attacks and know that their campus police are there to protect them” (261), and by hosting diverse yet non-partisan events.

In general, parents and prospective students should “[l]ook for answers that indicate that the institution has a high tolerance for vigorous disagreement but no tolerance for violence or intimidation” (262).

Many stressors afflict society today, including rising polarization, childhood anxiety and suicide, and a tendency toward pessimism despite the fact that many modern issues are “problems of progress” (264).

On the positive side, social media are taking steps to reduce harassment and other unhealthy online effects: states and school systems are beginning to encourage “practices that give kids more autonomy and responsibility” (266); scholars and leaders are becoming aware of the dangers of identity politics and are calling for more inclusive attitudes; and universities are beginning to pull away from safetyism and instead “committing to truth as a process” (268).

As more campuses adopt “ways to make students from all identity groups feel welcome without using the divisive methods” (268), people will flock to them, and even more schools will compete using the same approach: “There will be a growing recognition across the country that safetyism is dangerous […] If we can educate the next generation more wisely, they will be stronger, richer, more virtuous, and even safer” (269).

People can learn cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) from books: “The beauty of CBT is how easy it is to learn” (275). The authors suggest Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy, a bestseller by David Burns, especially for depression. For anxiety, they recommend The Worry Cure: Seven Steps to Stop Worry from Stopping You by Robert Leahy.

The basic process for doing CBT is as follows: When feeling distressed, write down the feeling and how intense it is; note what happened and any automatic thoughts at the moment of the distress; look through a list of categories of distorted automatic thoughts and note any that apply; consider evidence for and against the automatic thoughts; consider what someone might say who disagrees with those thoughts; re-evaluate the thoughts; write down new thoughts and feelings; and record the new level of intensity. Over time, distorted negative thoughts will tend to fade: “Many therapists recommend doing this type of exercise at least once or twice a day” (276).

Categories of distorted automatic thoughts include the following: mind reading (“He thinks I’m a loser”); fortune-telling (“I won’t get the job”); catastrophizing (“It would be terrible if I failed”); labeling (“He’s a rotten person”); discounting positives (“Those successes [...] don’t matter”); negative filtering (“Look at all of the people who don’t like me”); overgeneralizing (“I seem to fail at a lot of things”); dichotomous thinking (“a complete waste of time”); shoulds (“I should do well. If I don’t, then I’m a failure”); and personalizing (“The marriage ended because I failed”) (277).

Other distorted thought categories include: blaming (“My parents caused all my problems”); unfair comparisons (“She’s more successful than I am”); regret orientation (“I shouldn’t have said that”); what if? (“[W]hat if I get anxious?”); emotional reasoning (“I feel depressed; therefore, my marriage is not working out”); inability to disconfirm (“That’s not the real issue”); and judgment focus (“I’m not successful”) (278).

The Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression is published in 2015 to express the University of Chicago’s “commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the University’s community” (279). Over 40 schools adopt its principles as of 2018.

The Chicago Statement asserts that all members of its campus community are free “to discuss any problem that presents itself” (279). Furthermore, it is not proper for the school “to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive” (280).

Freedom of expression on campus excludes false defamation, violations of the law, threats, harassment, violations of privacy, and speech that is “otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning” (280) of the campus.

Speech deemed by some as “offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed” (280) may not be suppressed but, instead, vigorously debated. Such discussions are fundamental to the school’s purpose. Members of the community “may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe” (281).