Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and an expert in the psychology of morality, gave a talk at Holy Cross in April as the Hanify-Howland Memorial Lecture’s distinguished speaker. He currently teaches at NYU in the Stern School of Business, has won three major teaching awards, has had over three million views on his TED talks, and has written countless articles and three books. His latest book, The Coddling of the American Mind, co-written by Greg Lukianoff, was released in 2018. This book was the focus of Haidt’s talk. Although Haidt’s speech was quite good and I heartily recommend buying his book, I would like to emphasize one topic from his ideas: exposure to discomfort and its necessity on the campus.
One of Haidt’s key points in his speech and book is “How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.” In other words: covering up triggering material and preventing controversial speakers from speaking at universities, which supposedly helps college students, hurts them in the long run. Sure, listening to controversial material might be uncomfortable. A socially conservative student learning about transgenderism and LGBT culture in a Gender Studies class may feel uneasy, but many others would emphasize the importance of being exposed to such ideas. Exposure provides a better understanding of American society, where understanding other perspectives is - or at least should be - important.
That idea of exposure applies on both sides, however, which many college students (and nowadays professors) often forget. Why was it acceptable for protestors at UC Berkeley, for example, to scream at Ben Shapiro to the point where the University spent $600,000 on security? Students insulted Shapiro as he went by and several were arrested. Yet he in no way, shape, or form has tried to incite violence or harm at any college campus. His ideas, such as those on abortion and transgenderism, might be uncomfortable, but he has openly denounced white supremacy, says he does not support hate, and emphasizes that respect for those with different views is critically important. Rather than protesting and preventing controversial speakers from coming to their universities, students should willingly endure discomfort in order to better understand their own views. I do not expect anyone reading this to magically change their political and moral ideologies, but they need to be open-minded and respectful of all views. That often does not occur on college campuses.
Since becoming a writer of The Fenwick Review, I have become more aware of how people view its content. When I hear it mentioned, I usually hear “it’s trash,” “let’s rip this garbage up,” and so on. One of the latest, and more public, comments I have seen is on the Gossip at HC Instagram page, where someone submitted “Don’t have gossip. I just want to drag the Fenwick Review. I saw a copy and ripped it up. Thank God Claude is gone.” The Instagram page responded with “He is sorely (not) missed and hopefully the FR just fades out of existence soon.” They then posted the caption as follows (note the asterisks are for profanities): “Ding dong the witch is dead, the wicked witch, the wicked witch. F**k the Fenwick Review and the alumni that fund them. All it does is divide campus and fuel hate. Do we need to talk about Prof. Liew and the bulls**t they started?”
Most people read this and will not even blink an eye. In fact, many of you may even laugh and agree. No, I am not going to find the person who wrote that and tell them how hateful they are. No, I am not going to respond with hateful speech or insult views that are different from mine. I do, however, think this view of The Fenwick Review shows a subtle way that the problem of polarization and avoiding discomfort is continually growing. The Fenwick Review prides itself on its Conservative and Catholic ideals, which many people do not agree with. Instead of entertaining an article against the ENGAGE Summit or an article where a Conservative professor speaks about problematic student behavior, many students simply call them “trash.” They imply - or even explicitly state - that Conservatism and Catholicism are wrong, hateful, or both. I am not saying that the Review has never published a controversial article (on the contrary, in fact). However, college is an optimal time for students to learn and grow. Only reading The Spire, going to talks that align with one’s views, and taking non-controversial classes does not encourage true learning. It creates a false sense of security in one’s beliefs.
Since being at Holy Cross, I have considerably deepened my own views and beliefs, but the times I have grown most were when I was pushed out of my comfort zone. I had always gone to small, private, Catholic schools where I learned little about topics like gender, sexuality, and race. I took an Anthropology class my freshman year which included contemporary subjects such as transgenderism, immigration, economic systems, and white privilege. I was also introduced to more foreign concepts, such as cultures with nontraditional ways of living: walking marriages, headhunting, and circumcising women. In some classes, I had knowledge of the subject matter and was excited to participate and learn more. On other days, I felt uncomfortable and entered class without understanding how some cultures could hold their respective views. Although I did not suddenly change my beliefs about every subject, I did, however, learn much more than I expected to. After taking that class, I am now better able to speak more confidently on my views while also respecting the perspectives of others.
Similarly, during my first semester this year, I attended a combined College Republican and College Democrat meeting. Although I was excited, I was worried that both sides would devolve into yelling and insults. Instead, we calmly held small group discussions on gun control, immigration, and healthcare. Everyone at the meeting seemed to enjoy talking openly about their views, even the most controversial ones, and at the end of each topic, the groups shared what they agreed upon. Sometimes the agreement was plentiful; at other times, there were only one or two points of agreement. Creating an open environment allowed for healthy discussion on uncomfortable, controversial topics.
I tell those anecdotes not to pat myself on the back, but to demonstrate that we should let ourselves be uncomfortable. While maintaining your convictions, let yourself be exposed to different views. Consider exposure therapy in psychology: an individual with anxiety improves more quickly and for a longer time by exposing themself to what makes them anxious. They fall deeper into anxiety by shielding themselves from it. Next time you walk into Kimball, pick up a copy of The Spire and The Fenwick Review. Go in with an open mind. If you disagree, have an intellectual conversation with a friend who disliked your favorite article. Instead of just going to Rehm talks for your classes, go to talks with controversial subject matters. If you agree with the speaker, talk to a professor who disagreed. Discuss each others’ viewpoints. If you disagree, ask the speaker a considerate question. If you are still unsatisfied, you at least will leave there having learned about a different perspective and its reasoning. Being uncomfortable is the only way to grow.
And in case you were wondering, the Fenwick Review is not fading out. We’re here to stay.