People often ask me why I chose to go to a small liberal-arts school in New England, where conservative students are about as plentiful as palm trees in the area. To me, the choice hinged on the learning environment. I sensed that I learn more through smaller, discussion-oriented classes that allowed for active engagement, as opposed to merely taking notes from PowerPoint presentations in a colossal lecture hall.
Discussion-oriented classes are only effective when they encourage a diversity of thought. Learning through discussion requires students who are willing to vocalize and share their thoughts, reflections, and opinions. The depth of this learning relies on how much students feel at liberty to express their authentic beliefs. Unfortunately, a recent national survey of college students from the Buckley Institute illustrates just how far some students are willing to venture to go to obstruct free expression.
The Buckley Institute recently published a survey of college students across the nation. It revealed that 46 percent of students support the idea of mandatory sensitivity training or some form of re-education when a student is accused of making an insensitive remark, even if the allegation has not been substantiated. Another 46 percent of students believe that students expressing political opinions they consider offensive should be reported to school administrators.
For too many students, encountering dissenting opinions isn’t seen as an opportunity for constructive academic discourse. Rather, they are deemed wrong and require correction, not by other students, but by authority figures like sensitivity trainers and school administrators.
Students frequently justify this affront to academic expression by asserting their desire for a comfortable learning environment. During my freshman year of college, I found myself reported by a fellow student, which led to a meeting with a school administrator. I was informed in an email that my use of the term “illegal immigrant” in the context of discussing federal legislation had generated “complaints of microaggressions and an uncomfortable environment.”
Debate and discussion aren’t always easy; they demand diligent research, genuine thoughtfulness, and the capacity to construct logical arguments. Unfortunately, many students opt for the easier route of reporting their peers or insisting on professional correction through re-education training, rather than engaging in direct conversation with another individual. Why bother to critique a peer’s ideas when your school will readily deploy someone to do it on your behalf?
Any factor that disrupts the sanctity of the comfortable learning environment can be grounds to restrict speech; few things are a more explicit indicator of discomfort than “harm.” Thus, students contend that certain speech may not only be offensive or insensitive, but outright harmful.
45 percent of students believe that physical violence can be justified to prevent hate speech and racially charged comments, per the Buckley Institute survey. Those who make racist remarks should be held accountable by their colleges — not through the violent recourse of vigilante students. When speech is perceived as harmful, it establishes the notion that it should be met with even more explicit — even physical — harm. People like to fight fire with fire; the likelier students are to construe speech as harmful, the more inclined they are to react with physical aggression.
Indeed, which speech may be considered harmful can be rather subjective. The Buckley Institute further found that 39 percent of students expressed political comments they disagree with can be harmful to their mental health. These students are explicit — certain speech they disagree with is so immensely harmful that its mere utterance injures their health and well-being. By employing this deceptive tactic, they reframe political disagreement within a narrative of an aggressor and a victim, ostensibly providing a rationale for authority figures to restrain the one with contrasting political beliefs.
The consequence of this stifling of free expression is a depreciation of the educational experience. 59 percent of students admitted feeling intimidated when sharing ideas, opinions, or beliefs in class when they differed from those of their peers, according to the Buckley Institute survey. Disagreement is an integral part of academic rigor and political discourse, not to mention daily life. Yet college students are pressured to avoid it by too many of their peers.
What unfolds when a substantial portion of college students show a readiness to discipline disliked speech through a range of means, from re-education programs to reporting incidents to school administrators, and, in extreme cases, even violence? A culture in which students face greater pressure to stay silent in class discussion than to speak up. And that makes us all worse off.