Coddling Of The American Mind Analysis

T20138397

Analysis of “Coddling of the American Mind”

In the editorial “Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt examine the political correctness on college campuses and how it may be hurting students’ mental health. They explain by allowing campuses to discuss words, ideas, and subjects that can cause discomfort or give offense can provide positive attributes like helping students to produce better arguments and more productive discussions over differences. Does Lukianoff and Haidt provide sufficient evidence about how college campuses should raise attention about the need to balance freedom of speech to help students in their future and education to lead the reader to agree with their argument? The answer is yes,

because they provide efficient statistics, a use of pathos, and exquisite expert opinions.
Lukianoff and Haidt effectively uses statistics to support their argument by providing solid data and evidence on college campuses. For example, Lukianoff and Haidt provides a comparison of the changes on college campuses and how “since 2000, at least 240 campaigns have been launched at U.S. universities to prevent public figures from appearing at campus events; most of them have occurred since 2009”. This statistic strengthens their argument by showing members of the academic community are being extremely critical of a person, because they are shielding students from ideas that could cause discomfort or become offensive. However, Lukianoff and Haidt explain that the evidence shows it’s causing harm by not allowing any positive attribute to come from an appearance of a public figure. Also, the authors provide data to strengthen their topic on students and their mental health increasing at universities. Lukianoff and Haidt examine a “2014 survey by the American College Health Association, 54 percent of college students said that they had ‘felt overwhelming anxiety’ in the past 12 months, up from 49 percent in the same survey just five years earlier”. The use of statistics shows that students’ mental health is increasing and how it is changing how faculty and administrators are changing policies to the students needs. By using statistics, the reader is persuaded towards Lukianoff and Haidt’s argument, because it is backed up by numerical forms of data. By using data effectively, Lukianoff and Haidt strengthen their argument dramatically.
Lukianoff and Haidt also use pathos to influence and strengthen their position. Pathos allows the reader to feel emotions about reading about a topic and helps influence a reader to a decision on what they agree with in an argument. Lukianoff and Haidt use pathos for their success by explaining that “the bar for what we consider unacceptable speech is lowered further and further”. This allows the reader to feel angry towards universities and governments for not allowing them to discuss and argue over differences. A reader feels angry when they believe he or she has freedom of speech, according to the constitution, however, when they attend a university they are punished and judged by discussing differences in opinions. Also, Lukianoff and Haidt’s topic of their entire argument is about offending other people, which is also pathos. Offending someone is digging into their emotions and why they feel that way. Lukianoff and Haidt discuss how “students should also be taught how to live in a world full of potential offenses”. Learning and educating a student will allow emotions to not become closed in and private, which will help strengthen arguments and discussions. Pathos is a useful support in their argument by allowing the reader to understand and feel towards their argument.
The most strengthening and effective attribute Lukianoff and Haidt use is logical and irrefutable examples to strengthen their argument.

The authors are using credentials and conclusions of someone to vouch for their argument. For example, Lukianoff and Haidt explain that public figures like “Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke”. By public figures explaining the relevance of college campuses and how attention must be increased strengthens the argument, because it is bringing attention to the issues of freedom of speech. Lukianoff and Haidt also provide examples of events being canceled, because of protests. Based on a TV commercial an event was canceled because the “’program [was] dividing people and would make for an uncomfortable and possibly unsafe environment’”. This example shows how many events, words, subjects, will cause discomfort to people causing them to be canceled. However, the examples provided shows how many people are missing out on positive learning experiences. By showing examples, it strengthens the argument by allowing the reader to realize campuses are harming students and their experiences to

reality.
Lukianoff and Haidt provide efficient statistics, a use of pathos, and exquisite expert opinions to effectively support their argument. By using these techniques, it allows the reader to understand universities must examine the political correctness to help students in their mental health and education for reality.