According to a recent article in The Atlantic, American universities are under siege. Apparently, the current generation of students feels entitled to an education scrubbed clean of any ideas, words, or works of literature that may in any way trouble one of their number. They are pressuring teachers to limit discussion of offensive topics and make reading lists that contain “triggering” subject matter optional.
I don’t know that things are so dire here in Canada, but I think the warning would be well heeded. There seems to be a new kind of puritanism that prioritizes the needs of an overly sensitive few above the general public’s right to free and easy banter. Self-consciousness and self-censorship are required lest you say something not in line with the broadest (and blandest) of accepted opinions. But the quest for an environment in which nobody is ever offended will leave everybody reeling from self-conscious censorship.
The problem is that this reshaping of public debate is born out of fear (fear of seeming indifferent to a radical pluralism of needs) rather than a policy aimed at raising the level of discourse for all.
And here lies the irony: accommodating the widest range of sensitivities leads to the narrowest range of discussion. We can learn from what offends us, and we can come to grips with our demons and fears if they are brought into the light of day.
Additionally, the sanitization of public debate risks us not being able to find joy even in the face of oppression. If we can’t laugh at ourselves and our problems (for fear that somebody might take offense), how can we hope to move forward with solving them? Where will be the space for friendly needling or raucous banter?
Of course, everything I’m saying boils down to a line drawn somewhere in the middle of two camps. On the one hand you have the thoughtless, completely unfiltered disgrace of frat-boy hazing rituals and redneck rhetoric. But on the other hand there is an overly self-conscious culture that bans The Vagina Monologues for not being inclusive enough and restricts classroom discussion to topics that will be “emotionally safe” for all participants.
I had a high-school teacher who always said a student’s right to be late to class ended where the other students’ right to learn began. The same criteria should be applied here: an individual’s right to not be offended ends where society’s right to meaningful, healthy, and respectful discussion begins. Discussion about a world that is sometimes offensive. Discussion that someday might come up with a way to make that world a better place.