The Coddling Mind Omissions

I recently finished the much talked about book The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt.  Although I found the book engaging, interesting, and enlightening, I was left with nagging feeling that their analysis of the increasing mental fragility of academia and its inhabitants was incomplete.  Lukianoff and Haidt claim that much of the tomfoolery at the university is a result of what the term the three "Great Untruths" (you will have to read the book to find out what those are).  There is some truth in their "untruth" rationale.  However, that analysis is lacking some three key concepts

The first is that most of the college going youths have spent their lives in educational institutions that indoctrinated them with a certain progressive perspective.  Much of the curriculum in schools these days contain implicit an explicit Marxist ideas and philosophies.  Before some of you roll your eyes and say, "Here we go with the socialism, Marxism bit", let me say that as an educator for nearly twenty years, I can most assuredly speak from authority that this is the truth.  Back to my point...Students are taught the Marxist view of class power struggles, especially in terms of race, gender, and sexual orientation.  Essentially,  students taught that there are two groups of people: oppressed and oppressor.  The oppressed are people of color, LBGTQ, females and poor. If you occupy more than one of those categories you won the victimized lottery and are entitled to all sorts of honors.  You also have an automatic sense of credibility and integrity for no other reason than being in one of the aforementioned categories. The oppressors are usually white, straight, male, and Christian.  Unlike the "oppressed", these oppressors have nefarious motives and privileges who wage wars against the oppressed to keep them down.

Armed with various versions of this Marxist view of society, many young are also introduced to a hierarchy of civic engagement.  At, or near the top of this hierarchy, is the activist.  The activist is a person who doesn't merely participate a spectator but gets involved in the issues.  For most young progressive activists, they start out  by publicly declaring their stance on an issue or proclaiming solidarity to those in a struggle via social media or a hip bumper sticker. They graduate to full fledge activist by participating in marches, rallies, and boycotts.  

The problem for most of these young people that Lukianoff and Haidt discuss in their book is that they lack enough real oppression and injustices to fight and earn their activist cred,  So, they have to invent oppressions and injustices to fight.  Everything, and I mean everything on college campuses are often scrutinized by these Marxist activists in hopes of finding something to be enraged about.  By identifying these "oppressions" and "injustices", they can find meaning and purpose in their lives.  

Another key characteristic that Lukianoff and Haidt miss is the predisposition of many of these young people in our universities today.  It is no secret that much of the college cancel culture comes from the progressive side of the political spectrum.  That is no surprise to me and shouldn't be to them.  The reality is that progressives and left leaning folks have a predisposition to exerting power over others.  In fact, when one analyzes progressive platforms and their means to achieve their ends, one finds the consistent theme of exerting power over individuals.  Much of the impetus behind cancel culture, social media shaming, and boycotts has little to do with achieving a policy goal, rather it is the sick and twisted feeling they get from exerting their power over others.  Getting a college administrator to capitulate to the demands of the students is the real goal, the demands are merely the means.  

Lukianoff and Haidt miss the most obvious and simple explanation for the rise of college snow flakes:  It works!  Just like a three year old who learns that if they throw a big enough fit, their weak willed parent will yield to their demands.  The result is usually a mix of bigger and more dramatic tantrums and exasperated parents negotiating with their terrorist children to limit their public embarrassment.  So it is with college administrators and students. This is simple psychology and social learning theory that Lukianoff and Haidt omit.  I don't think for a second that when students use words like violence or trauma that they truly believe it.  These are outlandish claims used to make issues look much more dramatic than they truly are.   They use words like that because they work.  It doesn't have to do with the amount of free play they had when they were children.  It has everything to do with the fact that it works.   

Other than that, I thought the book was pretty spot on!