A few weeks ago, USC’s Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work announced that it will no longer use the word “field” in its curriculum, stating it may have “racist connotations.” The logic for this change was, in the words of the school itself, to support “anti-racist social work practice by replacing language that would be considered anti-Black or anti-immigrant in favor of inclusive language.” This argument is taking sensitivity a bit too far. While not reminiscent of attempts to remove a problematic figure’s name from a building, USC represents a case of progressive, DEI-laden activists altering the terms of engagement on college and university campuses. Unsurprisingly, the USC announcements prompted many critiques, stating that language like this is itself merely symbolic or tokenistic, “undertaken by those with a “tenuous connection” to the marginalized, or “performative activism.”
Prohibiting and shunning the use of certain words and phrases has become commonplace in higher education in recent years, with Stanford and Brandeis being notable examples. What is regularly missed in critiques about this overreach, however, is that this censorship is actually depriving students of a critical piece of a genuine liberal education where “intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.” Trying to limit words infantilizes students and explicitly attempts to remove a bedrock component of the educational experience: conflict and the ensuing discomfort that promotes educational growth, change, and reflection.
Coming from Philadelphia as a religious Jew, I entered a vastly different demographic and socio-political environment after I enrolled at Stanford. Many were ambivalent to my worldviews, which led to heated discussions in classrooms and residence halls. I would often disagree deeply with others based on language and ideas, and I would go to bed confused and hurt. Even though I clashed with my peers, it was one of the greatest things that happened to me. I grew intellectually and became more empathetic as the experience helped me question myself and others. The discomfort allowed me to explore and challenge my biases and I became better for it. Discussions were honest and could happen because we were trying to make sense of the world. Most importantly, Stanford did not try to regulate anyone’s speech or set the terms of our debates.
It turns out that today’s Gen Z college students, according to UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute’s latest data, thrive in a world of diversity and differing opinion. Two-thirds (67 percent) of first-year students report that they see openness to having their own views challenged as a major strength of theirs. Eighty-one percent feel that another major strength of theirs is tolerance of others with different beliefs. Moreover, over three-quarters (78 percent) of these students assert that they are above average when it comes to their ability to see the world from someone else’s perspective, and 87 percent believe that they are above the mean with respect to their ability to work cooperatively with diverse people. Finally, and most relevant, over two-thirds of students (69 percent) explicitly think that they are above average when it comes to their ability to discuss and negotiate controversial issues.
Even if the students are overstating their levels of openness, a huge number of college and university students take pride in having their worldviews challenged. Students relish the chance to manage controversy and have an open dialogue. Students have grown up with the omnipresence of social media and connectivity with constant exposure to conflict and noise. Students have had to learn to find signals and navigate a path toward understanding the world. It is irresponsible, pedagogically unethical, and dangerous for various colleges and universities to then try to restrict and censor the experiences and views to which students are exposed. Students are ready and open for conflict, which is a foundational part of a truly deep educational experience.
Despite clear First Amendment protections for speech, public and private schools continue to try to curtail expression by changing or setting the terms of how students question, converse, and engage with their peers and professors. This is foolish. Conflict helps define norms and generates new norms and ideas. Colleges and universities should encourage speech to develop into a self-regulating “marketplace of ideas” where students are free to make mistakes and understand that the use of offensive language carries penalties. A culture of this kind leads to a deeper understanding of values, history, and the human experience. Lists like Stanford’s and the virtue signaling of USC are further examples of attempted left-wing indoctrination of higher education. Rather than treating students like children and dictating students what words to use, schools should promote unfettered debate free of administrative attempts to steer the direction of thought and dialogue on campuses today.
Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
The post Limiting Language in Higher Education is a Huge Mistake appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.