People protest far-right writer Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley on February 1, 2017. A scheduled speech by Yiannopoulos was cancelled after protesters and police engaged in violent skirmishes Photo: Elijah Nouvelage\/Getty Images <\/p>\n
One fairly common idea that pops up again and again during the endless national conversation about college campuses, free speech, and political correctness is the notion that certain forms of speech do such psychological harm to students that administrators have an obligation to eradicate them or, failing that, that students have an obligation to step in and do so themselves (as has happened during recent, high-profile episodes involving Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos, which turned violent). <\/p>\n
Such claims of harm often summed up as speech is violence arent typically invoked in response to actual Nazis, or anything like that. Rather, they are used to argue against allowing speakers like Murray and Yiannopoulos who, for better or worse, do fit in the conservative mainstream or even significantly more moderate ones like Emily Yoffe, who has expressed skepticism about certain claims pertaining to the prevalence of sexual assault on campus. In one instance students successfully canceled a showing of American Sniper by arguing the films ostensible Islamophobia would make students feel unsafe and unwelcome though the screening was later uncanceled. <\/p>\n
Now, given the fog of culture war that has descended on this subject and the tendency of opportunistic (mostly) conservative outlets to hype these kinds of events, it isnt clear how common they actually are people often forget the polls suggesting that college students, broadly speaking, tend to hold pro-free-speech views. But either way, it is hard to take seriously the idea that an American Sniper showing or an Emily Yoffe appearance, or even a Yiannopoulos talk, is so potentially psychologically harmful that established norms about free expression which protect both College Republicans and Palestinian students advocating on behalf of their people should be tossed out the window. <\/p>\n
So its weird, in light of all this, to see the claim that free speech on campus leads to serious psychological harm being taken seriously in the New York Times, and weirder still to see it argued in a manner draped in pseudoscience. Yet thats what happened. In a Sunday Review column headlined When Is Speech Violence? Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, explains that scientifically speaking, the idea that physical violence is more harmful than emotional violence is an oversimplification. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain even kill neurons and shorten your life. Chronic stress can also shrink your telomeres, she writes little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes bringing you closer to death. <\/p>\n
In light of all this, she writes, it makes sense to think seriously about banning certain campus speakers: <\/p>\n
The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldnt be acceptable on campus and in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive. <\/p>\n
Offensiveness is not bad for your body and brain. Your nervous system evolved to withstand periodic bouts of stress, such as fleeing from a tiger, taking a punch or encountering an odious idea in a university lecture. <\/p>\n
[] <\/p>\n
Whats bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, thats the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. Thats also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it. <\/p>\n
Thats why its reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering. <\/p>\n
This is a weak and confused argument. Setting aside the fact that no one will ever be able to agree on whats abusive versus whats merely offensive, the articles Barrett links to are mostly about chronic stress the stress elicited by, for example, spending ones childhood in an impoverished environment of serious neglect and violence. Growing up in a dangerous neighborhood with a poor single mother who has to work so much she doesnt have time to nurture you is not the same as being a college student at a campus where Yiannopoulos is coming to speak, and where you are free to ignore him or to protest his presence there. One situation involves a level of chronic stress that is inflicted on you against your will and which really could harm you in the long run; the other doesnt. Nowhere does Barrett fully explain how the presence on campus of a speaker like Yiannopoulos for a couple of hours is going to lead to students being afflicted with the sort of serious, chronic stress correlated with health difficulties. Its simply disingenuous to compare the two types of situations in a way, its an insult both to people who do deal with chronic stress and to student activists. <\/p>\n
Its also worth pointing out that this sort of scaremongering Milo is coming and he is shrinking your telomeres! could become a self-fulfilling prophecy for some students. Theres an intriguing area of behavioral science known as mind-set research, and one of its tenets is that the relationship between stress and humans response to it is partially mediated by how people expect stress to affect them. In one intriguing study, for example, a group of Australian college students were given a psychological test and then told at random that it revealed they were either good at dealing with stress or bad at it. Then they watched, on a MacBook, a very disturbing ten-minute video of a car wreck, after which they were asked to close their eyes and relax for three minutes. When they opened their eyes, the researchers running the study asked them to estimate the number of times the films sounds and images intruded on their consciousness during the interlude, and how distressing they found the film overall. As it turned out, the students who were told at random they were good copers were less affected by the film they experienced, on average, about four and a half intrusions during the three-minute interlude, and rated their distress level at 5.65 on a 10-point scale. The poor copers, on the other hand, experienced about 18 intrusions and rated their distress level at almost an 8. Its an interesting finding albeit one conducted on a fairly small sample of 33 students and there are other studies which also suggest that the way we are primed to respond to stress can affect how we eventually do. <\/p>\n
Now, it would be just as much of a stretch to say that a single column like Barretts could cause students to self-traumatize as it would be to say that an upcoming Yiannopoulos appearance could traumatize them. But in the aggregate, if you tell students over and over and over that certain variants of free speech variants which are ugly, but which are aired every moment of every day on talk radio are traumatizing them, it really could do harm. And theres no reason to go down this road, because theres no evidence that the mere presence of a conservative speaker on campus is harming students in some deep psychological or physiological way (with the exception of outlying cases involving preexisting mental-health problems). This is a silly idea that should be retired from the conversation about free speech on campus. <\/p>\n
Doctors discovered a brain tumor during surgery to remove a blood clot last week.<\/p>\n
CBO says a straight repeal would cost 32 million their health coverage while doubling premiums.<\/p>\n
Putin won in Syria, one anonymous official told the Washington Post.<\/p>\n
In a case clarifying its earlier ruling that let the Trump travel ban partially take effect pending oral arguments, the Court splits the baby.<\/p>\n
Trump hasnt spent a night at Trump Tower since becoming president, but the Pentagon will be prepared when he does.<\/p>\n
What the discourse loses when commentators reserve our bile for the opposing party.<\/p>\n
The dismal state of the MTA is becoming a real problem for Andrew Cuomo.<\/p>\n
Most GOP congressmen are keeping their distance from the Trump familys Russia scandal. Thats not an option for Californias Dana Rohrabacher.<\/p>\n
Fourteen Democrats co-sponsored a bill that would make supporting a boycott of Israel or its settlements punishable by 20 years in prison.<\/p>\n
The Attorney General on Wednesday loosened rules on civil asset forfeiture, a practice critics call unconstitutional.<\/p>\n
The GOP should blame its own lack of policy vision not the president for Trumpcares demise.<\/p>\n
He called her incredibly beautiful three times in 43 seconds.<\/p>\n
Deedra Abboud, whos running against Senator Jeff Flake, is receiving a slew of harassment online.<\/p>\n
Todd Frazier, David Robertson, and Tommy Kahnle are getting fitted for pinstripes.<\/p>\n
Several provisions conservatives hitched to Obamacare repeal will need new legislative vehicles now that Trumpcare has crashed.<\/p>\n
In light of recent track fires, MTA chief Joe Lhota says its not a bad idea.<\/p>\n
Democrats could go small or big or refuse cooperation at all. But the party needs a strategy to deal with its sudden leverage over health-care policy.<\/p>\n
Pulling out the worlds tiniest violin.<\/p>\n
They want to know whether she disclosed her husbands and brothers meetings with foreign agents.<\/p>\n
We now know the U.A.E. hacked Qatars news service and planted false information, ratcheting up regional tensions. What now?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original: <\/p>\n
Telling Students 'Speech is Violence' Could Be Dangerous - NYMag - New York Magazine<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" People protest far-right writer Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley on February 1, 2017. A scheduled speech by Yiannopoulos was cancelled after protesters and police engaged in violent skirmishes Photo: Elijah Nouvelage\/Getty Images One fairly common idea that pops up again and again during the endless national conversation about college campuses, free speech, and political correctness is the notion that certain forms of speech do such psychological harm to students that administrators have an obligation to eradicate them or, failing that, that students have an obligation to step in and do so themselves (as has happened during recent, high-profile episodes involving Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos, which turned violent). Such claims of harm often summed up as speech is violence arent typically invoked in response to actual Nazis, or anything like that. Continue reading