Skip to content
- Before: Greg Lukinoff and Jonathan Haidt have conducted research about college and university “scrubbing campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense” (Lukinoff and Haidt paragraph 1). Professors and other higher powered leaders within school systems are forced to stop teaching certain topics, and ban other events or activities because they are offensive, even if unintentional. While I agree that college campuses have been preventing offensive speech, the authors neglect the fact of how far our society has come in the past 50 years of becoming more inclusive and equal to minority groups. These huge steps for different movements could not have happened without ones standing up for offensive speech. There are many changes within the past 40 years that have made college campuses, and society more inclusive to those who felt ostracized (LGBTQ+, women, people of color, etc). While many of these “trigger warning” topics have stopped important discussions within schools, and have held students back from ‘critical thinking.’ Critical thinking is defined “by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding” (Lukinoff and Haidt paragraph 7). This anger and disagreement has now been viewed as negative. Students are being told and shown what to think, instead of teaching us how to think, and make our own judgments of right and wrong.
- After: Greg Lukinoff and Jonathan Haidt have conducted research about college and university “scrubbing campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense” (Lukinoff and Haidt paragraph 1). Professors and other higher powered leaders within school systems are forced to stop teaching certain topics, and ban other events or activities because they are offensive, even if unintentional. While I agree that college campuses have been preventing offensive speech, and some of the examples that Lukinoff and Haidt gave were ridiculous, the authors neglect the fact of how far our society has come in the past 50 years of becoming more inclusive and equal to minority groups. These huge steps for different movements could not have happened without ones standing up for offensive speech. Dweck would agree that the world has had a growth mindset with many different controversial topics, and society has made them more widely discussed. While many of these “trigger warning” topics have stopped important discussions within schools, and have held students back from ‘critical thinking.’ Critical thinking is defined “by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding” (Lukinoff and Haidt paragraph 7). This anger and disagreement has now been viewed as negative. By colleges banning certain topics for no real reason, it creates a fixed minded campus. Students are being told and shown what to think, instead of teaching us how to think, and make our own judgments of right and wrong.
- Explanation: I added a couple sentences explaining my point of view more clearly, and using Dweck to combat Lukianoff and Haidt’s ideas. Using the two texts against one another is a thought Cripps and I had about my paper during our meeting, and I think it really helps bring this paragraph together.
- Before: Carol Dweck has spent her career researching the ideas of fixed and growth mindsets, and the definition of intelligence. A fixed mindset is defined as one who does not engage with error, one who runs from challenge. These students usually care more about the grade than the actual process of learning. They believe failing means the end, and there is no change that can be made. A growth mindset is defined as one who loves a challenge, one who engages deeply with an error to learn. These students are not afraid of a challenge, they want a hard problem. They want to fail because they know this is when learning occurs. They understand that intelligence can be developed. Dweck conducted an experiment to observe the reactions of 10-year-olds who were given a problem a little too hard for them. “Some of them reacted in a shockingly positive way. They said things like, ‘I love a challenge,’ or ‘You know, I was hoping this would be informative” (Dweck 1:01). These students knew this challenge would further their intelligence, and develop their skills of whatever the problem entailed. I know my 10-year-old self would have reacted more like these other students, who “felt it was tragic, catastrophic. From their more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed” (Dweck 2:08). While I agree with Dweck’s ideas about the students’ differing mindsets, I believe she underestimates the patience and attention that goes into changing one’s mindset.
- After: Carol Dweck has spent her career researching the ideas of fixed and growth mindsets, and the definition of intelligence. A fixed mindset is defined as one who does not engage with error, one who runs from challenge. These students usually care more about the grade than the actual process of learning. A growth mindset is defined as one who loves a challenge, one who engages deeply with an error to learn. These students are not afraid of a challenge, they want a hard problem. Dweck conducted an experiment to observe the reactions of 10-year-olds who were given a problem a little too hard for them. “Some of them reacted in a shockingly positive way. They said things like, ‘I love a challenge,’ or ‘You know, I was hoping this would be informative” (Dweck 1:01). These students knew this challenge would further their intelligence, and develop their skills of whatever the problem entailed. I know my 10-year-old self would have reacted more like these other students, who “felt it was tragic, catastrophic. From their more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed” (Dweck 2:08). While I agree with Dweck’s ideas about the students’ differing mindsets, I believe she underestimates the patience and attention that goes into changing one’s mindset. Lukianoff and Haidt agree with Dweck, in the fact that students’ thoughts, intelligence and beliefs should be developing. They believe that higher education has been putting a block on students ability to learn new ideas, and critically thinking about new topics.
- Explaination: At the beginning, I cut out a big part of the background around Dweck and her ideas of a growth mindset. I have added more thoughts about Lukianoff and Haidt and how their ideas aline with Dwecks here.
