Religion is a Mental Illness

"Harm" has become an almost ubiquitous term in social justice circles. Hear a Mandarin word that sounds like the N-word? You’ve been harmed, according to students and administrators at USC. Famed author of White Fragility Robin DiAngelo’s latest New York Times bestselling book is even subtitled “How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm”; it seems to argue that anything other than full adherence to her worldview perpetrates harm against people of color. 

In contemporary social justice parlance, the word harm has broadened from its original meaning of physical and sometimes mental injury to anything that offends, creates discomfort or, through "slippery slope" logic, can eventually lead to physical harm. The word "harm" does not mean what it used to mean. 

The standard definition of harm has undergone concept creep—the broadening of a word's meaning to incorporate thoughts and actions formerly considered outside its purview. When you see the definition of “white supremacy” go from the KKK and Nazis to “individualism” and “objectivity”, you’re seeing an example of concept creep. 

Where once the potential for harm existed in contact sports, accidents, physical altercations, traumas and so on, one might now find it while reading a reference to a racial slur in a question in a law school exam, or listening to a recorded debate in a classroom, such as when teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd played for her class a debate on transgender pronouns featuring psychologist Jordan Peterson, or encountering any of millions of possible triggering opinions on social media. 

The redefinition of harm infantilizes people and I, for one, refuse to be “harmed” so easily. I would never let someone else have so much power over my wellbeing that a "mean tweet" or a mere question—especially one asked out of curiosity or a request for elaboration—would shake me to my core.

Americans of African descent have been resilient through 250 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow apartheid. Now that we have overcome physical oppression and segregation, is now the time to give others so much control over our minds? Our happiness and fulfillment? I don't think a world in which people give their power away so easily is one any self-respecting person would want to see. 

As author and lawyer Van Jones so eloquently said, quote, “I don't want you to be safe ideologically. I don't want you to be safe emotionally. I want you to be strong. That's different. I'm not going to pave the jungle for you. Put on some boots and learn how to deal with adversity. I'm not going to take all the weights out of the gym. That's the whole point of the gym. This is the gym.”

My anti-racism is about promoting empowerment. Defining harm as shallowly as many other self-proclaimed anti-racist activists do leads them to mistake symbolic gestures for concrete strategies for change. Complaining about triggering language and hurt feelings directs energy away from ameliorating real suffering in the world: hunger, violence, homelessness, and so much more. Paying Robin DiAngelo’s 5-figure speaking fee enriches her but doesn’t get anyone out of economic deprivation. Encouraging students at Loyola University Chicago to report cases of perceived “emotional harm” to the school does nothing to help the hundreds of Chicagoans literally dying of homicide each year. 

I understand that certain words and statements do hold historically disquieting connotations. Being called a racial slur or being associated with a particular negative stereotype never feels good. This take on harm is closer to the original meaning of the word and such actions must be addressed effectively. However, eradicating “harm”—newly redefined—may only amount to performance art, in which the semblance of action is all that is needed. 

When you see someone complain about the “harm” imparted by someone else’s words, ask yourself if the complainer’s ideas and tactics will make any real difference in the lives of the truly injured. When harm begins to mean everything, it ceases to mean anything at all. 

Join me in building a culture of resilience and optimism at FairForAll.org

"If someone tried to take control of your body and make you a slave, you would fight for freedom. Yet how easily you hand over your mind to anyone who insults you. When you dwell on their words and let them dominate your thoughts, you make them your master."

-- Epictetus

The Futility of Trigger Warnings

British universities are repeating the mistakes of their American counterparts.

persuasion.community

Just days into the new year, Scottish papers reported that the University of Aberdeen had slapped a trigger warning on J.M. Barrie’s Peter Pan, a classic children’s novel about a place where nobody ever grows up. The reason: the book’s “odd perspectives on gender” may prove “emotionally challenging” to some adult undergraduates, even though it contains “no objectionable material.”

Yes, you read that right—a children’s book now comes with a trigger warning for adults. What’s more, Peter Pan is not the only children’s book to come with an advisory at Aberdeen. Among others are Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island, Edith Nesbit’s The Railway Children and C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Last year the university put a trigger warning on Beowulf, the epic poem considered one of the most significant works in the English literary canon, for its depictions of “animal cruelty” and “ableism.” The year before that, the university pushed lecturers to issue content warnings for a long list of topics including abortion, miscarriage, childbirth, depictions of poverty, classism, blasphemy, adultery, blood, alcohol and drug abuse.

Aberdeen is not the only British university following in the steps of American counterparts. The University of Derby issued trigger warnings for Greek tragedies. The University of Warwick put a content advisory on Thomas Hardy’s Far From the Madding Crowd for “rather upsetting scenes concerning the cruelty of nature and the rural life.” At the University of Greenwich, the death of an albatross in “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s 18th century poem, was deemed “potentially upsetting” and stuck with a content notice.

This trend is alarming for several reasons. First, it runs counter to research on the effects of such advisories. As early as 2020 the consensus, based on 17 studies using a range of media, was that trigger warnings do not alleviate emotional distress, and they do not significantly reduce negative affect or minimize intrusive thoughts. Notably, these advisories, which were at least initially introduced out of consideration for people suffering from PTSD, “were not helpful even when they warned about content that closely matched survivors’ traumas.”

On the contrary, researchers found that trigger warnings actually increased the anxiety of individuals with the most severe PTSD, prompting them to “view trauma as more central to their life narrative.” A recent meta-analysis of such warnings found the same thing: the only reliable effect was that people felt more anxious after receiving the warning. The researchers concluded that these warnings “are fruitless,” and “trigger warnings should not be used as a mental health tool.”

But beyond the fact that trigger warnings don’t work in general, there is something particularly perverse about appending them to works of literature and art.

Engaging with art is not simply a matter of extracting information or following the storyline. Rather, as Salman Rushdie once put it, literature allows us “to explore the highest and lowest places in human society… to find not absolute truth but the truth of the tale, of the imagination and of the heart.” Literature cultivates an aesthetic sensibility, a deeper sense of empathy, and allows you to be taken out of yourself in a way that only art can do. Joyce Carol Oates characterizes it as “the sole means by which we slip, involuntarily, often helplessly, into another’s skin, another’s voice, another’s soul.”

In other words, literature is transformative precisely because it has the ability to shock and surprise. It can jolt us out of complacency, force us to contend with the uncertain, the strange and even the ugly. For Franz Kafka, the only books worth reading are the ones that “wound or stab us.” He observed:

Contending with “the frozen sea” opens the door for the kind of contemplation that is necessary for growth. When a classic such as Beowulf comes with “animal cruelty” and “ableism” on the cover, a piece of literature that offers us a unique window into the traditions and values of medieval Anglo-Saxons is devalued, and simply becomes a text riddled with “problematic” themes.

I can’t help but think that something is broken when universities, the very institutions entrusted with helping young minds mature, infantilize students by treating them as fragile creatures. What accounts for this shift?

Students across Britain seem to be in favor of trigger warnings. According to a survey published by the Higher Education Policy Institute last year, 86% of students support trigger warnings (up from 68% in 2016). More than a third think instructors should be fired if they “teach material that heavily offends some students” (up from just 15% in 2016).

Sadly, it appears that universities in Britain have fallen prey to the kind of corporate logic that is already firmly entrenched in the United States. This growing managerial approach with its customer-is-always-right imperative is increasingly evident in university policies.

Indeed, it explicitly underpins Aberdeen’s decision to use trigger warnings. As the University spokesperson explained: “Similar to the way that content warnings are routinely applied by broadcasters, students are informed about the content of the texts and, as critically mature adults, they are empowered to make their own decision about which text to read. Our guidelines on content warnings were developed in collaboration with student representatives and we have never had any complaints about them—on the contrary students have expressed their admiration for our approach.”

But university is not a television or radio show. Far from it. It’s a place where students come for an education. A model where faculty and administrators pander to student sensitivities—to the extent that it starts undermining the mission of the university—would be comical were it not so serious. If we fail to equip our students with the skills and sensibilities necessary to cope with life, we are doing them a great disservice.

When adult university students ask for trigger warnings for children’s literature, we as a society should realize that somewhere along the line, we lost the plot. Instead of coddling our students we should be asking why they feel so emotionally brittle. Might it be that their fragility is the result of limited exposure to what constitutes the human condition and the range of human experience? Is shielding them and managing their experience of art and literature not just exacerbating their sense of vulnerability?

Perhaps, in the end, what they need is unmediated, warning-free immersion in more literature, not less.

Other universities have competed to see who can invent the most asinine warnings: Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (1599) has a plot that “centres on a murder”; Robert Louis Stevenson’s Kidnapped (1886) “contains depictions of murder, death, family betrayal and kidnapping”; Ernest Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea (1952) includes scenes of “graphic fishing.” Even George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four has been slapped with a warning that students might find the contents “offensive and upsetting.” Of course, those who would assume that a famous dystopian novel would be inoffensive and uplifting probably shouldn’t be studying literature in the first place.

University warns students Old Man and the Sea contains graphic scenes

Ernest Hemingway's classic novel The Old Man And The Sea is the latest victim of today's woke standards, with students warned that it contains 'graphic fishing scenes'.

www.dailymail.co.uk|Chris Hastings

• History and Literature students at the University of the Highlands and Islands in Scotland have been warned the classic novel contains 'graphic fishing scenes'
• TV and film adaptions of the 1952 classic have been given U and PG certificates
• The university said content warnings allow students to make informed choices

It is a story of one man’s heroic struggle against the elements and often viewed as a metaphor for life itself. But Ernest Hemingway’s classic novel The Old Man And The Sea is the latest victim of today’s woke standards, with students warned that it contains ‘graphic fishing scenes’.

Successive TV and film adaptations of the 1952 classic have been awarded U and PG certificates, suitable for children, but a content warning has been issued to History and Literature students at the University of the Highlands and Islands in Scotland, an area renowned for its fishing industry.

Mary Dearborn, the author of Ernest Hemingway, A Biography, said: ‘This is nonsense. It blows my mind to think students might be encouraged to steer clear of the book.

‘The world is a violent place and it is counterproductive to pretend otherwise. Much of the violence in the story is rooted in the natural world. It is the law of nature.’

Jeremy Black, emeritus professor of history at the University of Exeter, added: ‘This is particularly stupid given the dependency of the economy of the Highlands and Islands on industries such as fishing and farming.

'Many great works of literature have included references to farming, fishing, whaling, or hunting. Is the university seriously suggesting all this literature is ringed with warnings?’

The content warning was revealed in documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday under Freedom of Information laws.

The novel tells the story of Santiago, an ageing fisherman who catches an 18ft marlin while sailing in his skiff off the coast of Cuba.

Unable either to tie the giant fish to the back of the tiny vessel or haul it on board, he proceeds to hold the line for an unspecified number of days and nights.

Despite suffering intense physical pain, Santiago feels compassion for the captured animal. Only when the fish begins to circle his craft does he reluctantly kill it, but he is then forced to fight with, and kill, several sharks intent on devouring the corpse.

Santiago chastises himself for killing the marlin and tells the sharks they have killed his dreams, before eventually making it to shore.

Fans of the novel, which won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, believe Santiago’s battle with the forces of nature is a reference to Hemingway’s own struggles, while others have seen the story of bloodshed, endurance and sacrifice as a metaphor for Christianity.

The University of Highlands and Islands, made up of 13 research institutions and colleges, has issued content warnings for other classics.

Students studying Homer’s The Iliad, written in the 8th Century BC, and Beowulf, an English poem penned around 1025 AD, are warned that they contain ‘scenes of violent close combat’.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is flagged because it contains ‘violent murder and cruelty’ and students studying Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Romeo And Juliet are warned that the plays contain scenes of ‘stabbing, poison and suicide’.

A University spokesman said: ‘Content warnings enable students to make informed choices.’

suitable for children, but a content warning has been issued to History and Literature students

contain scenes of ‘stabbing, poison and suicide’.