
This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University - teh_klev
http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2015/11/this-is-not-a-day-care-its-a-university/
======
sago
I think the world would be better if, before you're allowed to respond to
someone being wrong, you have to first be able to express their position in a
way that they agree represents their view.

Because 'political correctness' isn't the cancer at the heart of social
politics, it is straw-manning. On both sides of every issue.

I'd be surprised, perhaps even amazed, if Dr Piper had represented the
complaint in any way recognisable to the person who'd made it. This just
smells of tendentious reporting.

~~~
SeanDav
A little research will produce a vast number of examples of political
correctness with real consequences and not just "straw-manning".

Here is a recent example: A Canadian university cancels a yoga class because
yoga comes _" from a culture that “experienced oppression, cultural genocide
and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy,”_

In a world that can do that, I don't find it surprising that a student could
express the view in the original article and actually mean it.

~~~
jbob2000
Just to add some more info; it was the student union that was running the yoga
class and cancelled it, the university administration had no part in its
cancellation. This was wholly done by students.

~~~
zwily
That doesn't seem to change how ridiculous it sounds, does it?

~~~
jbob2000
Nope, it's more ridiculous, I think. I'm used to misguided administrations;
that's par for the course. But students policing themselves, and it's worse
than any misguided administration could do? Unbelievable.

~~~
hobs
For some reason I am strongly reminded of the book "Interesting Times"

“The Empire's got something worse than whips all right. It's got obedience.
Whips in the soul. They obey anyone who tells them what to do. Freedom just
means being told what to do by someone different.”

― Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times

------
lagadu
I find it baffling that there are people, in the real world, who somehow think
that for unexplained reasons they have the right to not be offended or be made
to feel uncomfortable.

Somehow they believe that their feelings are the responsibility of everyone
else.

~~~
maaku
While I sympathize with your viewpoint, perhaps I can shed some clarity on the
other side. The concern is not feelings getting hurt, but rather physical
security as a person of minority status.

This is something that a white heterosexual middle-class male (such as myself)
can probably never fully appreciate, but I try to sympathize.

Imagine what it is like to be black in a country where just a few generations
back you carried at all times in mixed-race race situations the possibility of
being assaulted without recourse or lynched, or in present times accused and
convicted of a crime you didn't commit or shot on sight for being in the wrong
place at the wrong time.

Imagine what it is like to be Jewish and have 85% of your relatives
systematically wiped out in living memory.

Imagine what it is like to be a woman on a college campus where statistically
1 in 3 suffer sexual assault over the course of a 4 year education, almost
always with the assailant getting off without charges.

Most times such people take offense it is not about feeling uncomfortable, but
rather feeling _unsafe_. It is about fear that what starts with words will
inevitably turn to, or enable, or justify actions.

~~~
whatok
Why has all the hyper-sensitivity only come to the forefront over the past few
years then?

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Why do you think it's only been the last few years? It's always existed. The
internet allows people to now convene to discuss these issues and establish
acceptable behaviors.

~~~
whatok
I don't know how much actual discussion (vs preaching to the choir) occurs on
the internet when anyone with a remotely differing view is immediately told
that they are wrong for not agreeing 100% and shortly after has a Twitter mob
doxing them.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
It seems there isn't a twitter mob doxing you right now for having this view.

------
laotzu
The Gift of Insults, an old zen tale:

There once lived a great warrior. Though quite old, he still was able to
defeat any challenger. His reputation extended far and wide throughout the
land and many students gathered to study under him.One day an infamous young
warrior arrived at the village. He was determined to be the first man to
defeat the great master. Along with his strength, he had an uncanny ability to
spot and exploit any weakness in an opponent. He would wait for his opponent
to make the first move, thus revealing a weakness, and then would strike with
merciless force and lightning speed. No one had ever lasted with him in a
match beyond the first move.

Much against the advice of his concerned students, the old master gladly
accepted the young warrior’s challenge. As the two squared off for battle, the
young warrior began to hurl insults at the old master. He threw dirt and spit
in his face. For hours he verbally assaulted him with every curse and insult
known to mankind. But the old warrior merely stood there motionless and calm.
Finally, the young warrior exhausted himself. Knowing he was defeated, he left
feeling shamed.

Somewhat disappointed that he did not fight the insolent youth, the students
gathered around the old master and questioned him. “How could you endure such
an indignity? How did you drive him away?”

“If someone comes to give you a gift and you do not receive it,” the master
replied, “to whom does the gift belong?”

~~~
DarkTree
I had not read this before, but I really like it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my takeaway is that since the old master did not
accept the young warrior's insults, the insults remained with the young
warrior, almost as if he was insulting himself.

In relation to the article, those who blame others for their victimization are
in fact pointing out their own flaws.

~~~
nightspirit
It's something I call creationism. You give something a name ("insults"), ask
some grammatically-correct questions about it ("where did it go?", "to whom
did it stick?") and now you _created_ this magic, metaphysical _thing_ which
you feel really exists and needs to answer your questions one way or another.

While in the mundane everyday world, the young warrior simply made a fool of
himself.

~~~
laotzu
>I must state clearly that my teaching is a method to experience reality and
not reality itself, just as a finger pointing at the moon is not the moon
itself. A thinking person makes use of the finger to see the moon. A person
who only looks at the finger and mistakes it for the moon will never see the
real moon.

------
balabaster
It doesn't take long watching social media trending tags - particularly on
Twitter to notice that there is definitely a trend of this kind of sentiment
among the demographic of the social media outlets. While the article may (or
may not be, I really have no idea) a fabrication, my observation is that the
sentiment towards playing the victim and labeling others as haters and bigots
is extensive.

Being brought up Christian, I also have no argument that many of the
"Christian" religions, Catholicism in particular, do seem to favour guilt as
the tool of choice to manipulate their congregations into toeing the line -
it's one of the many reasons I shunned the church at a fairly young age. I
have no interest in spending my life feeling guilty for not living up to an
unreasonable expectation of a collection of long dead ancestors that have
little (if any) bearing on today's society. What happened to just treating
others as you wish to be treated in return?

There is guilt on both sides of this argument and neither one can stop to
address their own shortcomings before judging the other.

On the other hand, I have little to argue with the content of the article. If
you're not equipped to deal with how the world around you treats you, you will
forever be playing the victim card. Is that what you really want for your
whole life? or are you ready to take charge of yourself, responsibility for
your own emotions and behaviour? or would you prefer to be treated as a child
for the rest of your life, protected from reality by 'yes' men, validating you
because you haven't learned to deal with your feelings of a lack of
validation?

Nobody ever accomplished anything without dealing with the discomfort of the
world around them.

~~~
webXL
_What happened to just treating others as you wish to be treated in return?_

You just made me feel bad about all the times I wasn't empathetic. Not really,
but witness how deeply ingrained our ability to use and feel guilt is.

~~~
balabaster
LOL, I actually didn't say that as a thinly veiled guilt trip... it was a
genuine question... what happened to it? Where did this notion fall by the
wayside and get replaced with a more narcissistic attitude that appears to be
more prevalent now?

------
Overtonwindow
This is really fantastic. While I don't agree with religion in university (but
if it works for you great!) I completely agree with the gist of her argument.
Students are coddled too much. If you're not uncomfortable then you're not
paying attention. If you need "trigger warnings" or "safe spaces" at a
university then you're not ready for university, or at the very least, you
have a lot of growing up to do.

This may sound harsh but it's reality, and the real problems in life won't be
at university, they'll be out in the real world. There are no safe spaces and
trigger warnings in the real world.

~~~
ikeboy
The defense to "you're being a jerk" can only be "I'm not".

This article says "I am, but it's okay, get used to it". There's a huge
difference between telling someone that their beliefs are wrong to telling
them that they are bad and should feel guilty, especially if the doctrine says
that everyone is bad and should feel guilty all the time.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> The defense to "you're being a jerk" can only be "I'm not".

No, because the response is going to be "Yes you are", and we descend into a
shouting match. The reply is "What is your standard for 'being a jerk', and is
that standard a reasonable one?"

> There's a huge difference between telling someone that their beliefs are
> wrong to telling them that they are bad and should feel guilty, especially
> if the doctrine says that everyone is bad and should feel guilty all the
> time.

That seems like a fair description of how "victimhood culture" treats the rest
of us.

~~~
ikeboy
_No, because the response is going to be "Yes you are", and we descend into a
shouting match._

I don't mean literally, the words you say must be "I'm not a jerk." I mean the
defense must consist of a denial that the behavior was jerkish. If that's
achieved by laying out standards for jerkishness, that's fine.

The OP read to me as not even achieving that. It wasn't "we aren't jerks,
because what we did wasn't jerky", it was "we're going to be jerks, tough on
you, shut up".

>That seems like a fair description of how "victimhood culture" treats the
rest of us.

I'm not discussing victimhood culture. I'm discussing a specific defense to a
specific complaint, which I think lacks value. The specific complaint was not
trying to make people feel bad, it was to make themselves feel good. The
response explicitly acknowledges that they're trying to make people feel bad.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> The response explicitly acknowledges that they're trying to make people feel
> bad.

Let's start here: The point of Christianity is to make you _holy_ , not to
make you _happy_.

When you teach something like I Corinthians 13, if it's going to help anyone's
life instead of being merely an academic exercise, you wind up saying "Yes,
you really are supposed to love like this. Do you?" If that makes someone feel
bad, well, that's not actually the point. The point is that they recognize
that they don't love in the way that they should, _and therefore see the need
to change._

And if you're going to say that changing your life in that way isn't the job
of a university, well, this is a _Christian_ university, and they think it is
exactly their job. And if you're a student there, then presumably that's what
you wanted, too.

You (ikeboy) seem to want this Christian university to be a secular one. That
is not a reasonable expectation.

Now, I recognize that there are lots of ways that "making them recognize that
they don't love in the way that they should" can be manipulative and even
abusive, but it is not inherently so. And the fact that people feel bad
(guilty) along the way isn't a flaw, if in fact they are guilty in terms of
the biblical standard. To repeat, the point of Christianity is to make you
holy, not to make you happy.

~~~
ikeboy
Saying something is Christian does not imply it is fine. The proper response
to "I'm a jerk because I'm Christian" is "fine, be Christian, but you'll face
the consequences of being a jerk, one of which is public shaming for being a
jerk".

There was a valid point made that the student chose to go to a Christian
college. But note that the logic that that implies is precisely the logic
behind trigger warnings: that people can _choose_ what to associate with.
Clearly, the student did not anticipate the content of the sermon, despite
knowing it was a Christian university. So in that case, a warning for that
lecture would have let the student know whether to go, and, depending on how
important it was to them, possibly drop out.

Deliberately not having trigger warnings is deliberately deceptive.

~~~
JungleGymSam
> Deliberately not having trigger warnings is deliberately deceptive.

 _facepalm_

~~~
ikeboy
That's not an argument. Could you explain why you disagree?

It seems that in the absence of a warning, there is no informed consent;
asking for a warning allows for freedom of association.

If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our
university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled.
However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and
then leave." I would support him. To specifically say "I'm not telling people
about what will happen" means you don't want people to know in advance. How is
that not deceptive?

As I noted above, the argument that the student chose a Christian college and
therefore should know about it falls flat, because the student did _not_ know
about it. And if knowing was a good thing, then so would a trigger warning on
the talk; it's literally accomplishing the task of making sure people know.

~~~
JungleGymSam
How does one argue with someone that has irrational and illogical views?

> If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our
> university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled.
> However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and
> then leave." I would support him. To specifically say "I'm not telling
> people about what will happen" means you don't want people to know in
> advance. How is that not deceptive?

The mere thought that this is what you expect says, "I'm not a rational
person."

How does anyone respond to that? There's nothing to be said to you. You've
made no indication (from the many comments I've read) that you're prepared to
have your mind changed or that you're open to other points of view.

You have come to an irrational conclusion and that's it. You're finished.
Everyone else (that doesn't agree) is a "jerk" and can take a hike.

~~~
ikeboy
I'd be interested in a robust defense of the claim that refusing to have a
trigger warning, in the context of this post, is not deceptive.

The arguments I see for not having one are: too few people would care so it's
not worth inconveniencing the many for the few; there's already informed
consent and so it's useless; and the talk is not harmful to anyone. (I think I
had another minor one in mind but can't recall right now.)

1 is possible, but is not the one made by OP. I've argued against the premise
of 2 (which the OP did make); if you have a more deontological worldview, you
might want to frame this as the student's "own fault" for not realizing, but I
generally don't blame people for being dumb (in the sense of insisting on them
bearing the consequences of being dumb), instead asking which course of action
yields the best consequences. In this case, if we assume informed freedom of
association is a value, then adding information is a benefit.

3 would be a good defense if done well, but again, isn't the OP. It would
actually be the best example of "I'm not a jerk"-type answers. But it's not
immediately obvious how we can view something that bothered someone as not
harming them. At best, you'd probably need to invoke Christian beliefs and go
back to "informed consent" as above. Presumably you concede that Christians
shouldn't do this to outsiders, and so the issue is about what counts as
informed consent.

------
cJ0th
"I like to offend people, because I think that everyone who gets offended,
should be offended." \-- Linus Torvalds

~~~
madaxe_again
One takes offence, one does not give it. It's an idiopathic condition.

I'm a white male, but I grew up being called Gwailo, Gaijin, Auslander, and
when I finally returned to the anglosphere in my early teens, I was still an
outsider as I spoke with a weird accent and was by that point a through-and-
through third culture kid. I got the crap bullied out of me, and eventually
figured out that it only hurt if I took it to heart. I learned to pity those
whose worlds were so small that they could only take satisfaction from being
cruel to me. It was their problem, not mine.

Folks need to have thicker skin, and realise that not everything is about
them. In fact, very little is ever about you, most of what people say and do
are manifestations of their own thoughts and emotional issues. Physical
violence is of course something that needs to be fought against (and this is
why we have criminal justice systems which typically take this sort of thing
perfectly seriously), but you can only be the victim of "verbal violence" if
you choose to take the position of victim.

~~~
coldpie
> Folks need to have thicker skin

Why?

Congratulations on being such a paragon of excellence. Why should we require
such virtue of all humans? Instead of expecting you to develop a thick skin
(are you sure this is a good thing?), why can't we try to reform your
aggressors in the first place?

~~~
orik
Because reforming all possible aggressors ever is an uphill battle you'll
never solve.

Imagine you have an API that receives a POST with some JSON. Every time your
API receives a malformed POST, your application crashes or hangs. Do you a)
try to do your best to make sure no one ever POSTS to your uri with malformed
data, or do you b) rewrite your API to be more robust and send back an error
code when malformed input is received rather than crashing?

Does that analogy make any sense or is it too far fetched?

~~~
coldpie
> Because reforming all possible aggressors ever is an uphill battle you'll
> never solve.

I don't believe this is true. Human behavior can change. Relative to its
levels 500 years ago, we've all-but eliminated physical violence in first-
world countries. I don't think it's much of a stretch to believe we can all-
but eliminate emotional violence as well.

We're dealing with human beings, so I didn't read your JSON analogy, sorry.

~~~
venomsnake
> We're dealing with human beings, so I didn't read your JSON analogy, sorry.

Unreliable, unpredictable, illogical, making no sense and you never has exact
idea which rules they obey at the moment and what output they will generate.

So human beings indeed sound like Javascript or PHP ... [1]

[1] 10 years experience with php and JS.

------
ucaetano
_" Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place”, but rather, a place to learn"_

Exactly, I don't get why people are trying to make universities, workplaces,
clubs, or anywhere else "safe places". They should not be safe places, they
should be places where you feel confronted, challenged and threatened by
different ideas and points of view.

~~~
HillRat
While I agree with your fundamental point, I'm pretty sure that Everett
Piper's Oklahoma Wesleyan is a _very_ safe space for a particular kind of
hard-shell evangelical. You don't go to that kind of school to be "confronted,
challenged and threatened," but to have your worldview confirmed.

~~~
jorgeleo
That will means that there is 1 single theological theory, because then
everybody that goes there will have their worldview confirmed since there is
only one. Unfortunately, looks like it is also what the student in the article
expected.

My experience shows me that there are as many theological points of view as
believers. Everybody gets their own personal variety.

------
_petronius
"If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in
confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than
humbly learn ..."

I agree with the fundamental point about mistaking being offended (or made to
feel guilty) for victimization, that being said:

There _is_ such a thing as opression and the sidelining of the concerns of
groups within society that are already marginalized. This veers dangerously
close to being dismissive of that fact, and the author seems to nearly (if not
outright) mock perceived "political correctness" and a set of working
vocabulary that has been established around speaking about such
marginalization.

I'm not sure that's particularly humble or self-reflective of Dr Piper.
Although I'm also sure that such language can be abused (just as any discourse
can be misused in favor of the person weilding it). "We don’t believe that you
have been victimized every time you feel guilty" may be true, and may even be
particularly true for the group of people he is adressing (OKWU students), but
I hope it is tightly coupled with a belief in and an understanding of the very
real forces of inequality that exist in society today.

~~~
HarryHirsch
This needs to be said more often, and louder. Myself, I find it disconcerting
that the only counterweight to the "Friendly Spacers" are found on the far
right.

~~~
_petronius
To be clear: I am not in any way opposed to the creation of safe spaces and
contexts where people can be free of the shit that is heaped upon them by the
culture at large.

The fact is, the world can be pretty freaking hostile if you're gay, trans, a
woman, from a minority ethnic group, or otherwise part of a group that is not
mainstream. The hair-raising experiences related to me by friends of mine have
made it utterly clear to me that I live an awfully privileged life in that
regard (specifically, going about my daily life never for a moment worried
that I would be sexually harassed or discriminated against).

There are people that mistake "not being pandered to" with "being victimized",
but there are also a lot of people who experience these things in an
absolutely genuine fashion.

So I'm not trying to act as a "counterweight" to anything, except the extreme
cynicism of the author, and people who mistake being challenged in their views
for being attacked.

------
philh
This seems to be thrusting in two directions. One about trigger warnings and
safe spaces and so on, and one about sermons and guilt.

One common narrative re safe spaces seems to be: "if something makes you
uncomfortable, you should suck it up instead of trying to force everyone else
to accommodate you". I think this is somewhat missing the point, but I can
relate to it. I feel like this is the dominant narrative in this thread.

But the narrative in the article seems to be: "if something makes you
uncomfortable, good! It's because you're a bad person. You should be a better
person instead of asking us to tell you you're not bad".

And I pretty strongly disagree with that.

For example, if the sermon was all about how gay people are going to hell, and
that made a student uncomfortable, that's not because the student is a bad
person. That's because it was a terrible sermon.

From the description, this sermon was not obviously terrible. But that still
doesn't make the student a bad person. Not everyone experiences or expresses
emotions in the same ways. That's fine. When people start speaking about
experiences as if they're human universals, and if you don't share those
experiences, that can make you uncomfortable. That's fine too. It doesn't make
the speaker a bad person, but it doesn't make you a bad person either.

~~~
Juliate
I pretty strongly disagree with that "because you're a bad person" too, if it
were that.

But what I read in the article is more "because you're not perfect, as neither
one of us is, so show a little introspection about you before complaining
about others".

And... it's about 1 Corinthians 13. See
[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1...](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13)
Seriously, go read it, it resonates in quite a peculiar way with this whole
discussion.

(edited for missing word)

~~~
philh
> An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you
> feel guilty.

Maybe that's not quite "you're a bad person". But I feel like your reading is
missing the "you should feel bad" aspect.

That chapter resonates with me too, because it's pretty much exactly the
sentiment I'm disagreeing with. Supposedly it doesn't matter what you _do_ ,
it matters what you _feel_.

No, that's exactly wrong. If you do the right thing, that's good. If you do
the wrong thing, that's bad. It doesn't matter what you were feeling when you
did it.

Love makes people do some really shitty things. "I love you and I want you to
not go to hell, so I'm going to beat the gay out of you", for example. That
love is genuine, and it doesn't redeem the action.

The opposite is true as well, where people do good while hating it every
minute. (No good example comes immediately to mind, and I'm spending too long
on this post.) They don't lose points for having unvirtuous emotions. They did
good, and that's enough.

~~~
Juliate
> Supposedly it doesn't matter what you do, it matters what you feel.

I think I see what you mean. But this is not how I read Corinthians; but I
agree that this may not be shared either, and I won't make this about
religion, I'm really talking about the text itself.

First, it does not put love before actions. It says actions/qualities (or that
most of life, actually) is meaningless, nothing, without love (as an
attachment to God/Truth)

Second, it defines what is definitely not "love", so one may not use it as a
pretext for wrong doing (at least).

Third, it says that we will never see things fully, neither at once, until,
that is, the end (provided it's not an ellipsis, he! :) ).

Plus, "love" as expressed in this text is not Philia
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia))
but from Latin Caritas
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29))
(or Greek "agape"); which is not about a feeling, but about something way
deeper, transcendant and, although not quite the right word, respectful, for
one to an other. It's love as one of the three Christian theological virtues
(fides, spes, caritas), that is, in an intimate relation to the Christian God
(in this context) as a guide, a goal, an ideal for love/Philia too.

> That love is genuine, and it doesn't redeem the action.

I see your point. That love is, actually, deeply misled. Actually, that's not
love, that's fear that supersedes love ("I fear that you [x] and I don't want
to because this makes me [y] and I freak out and I don't think you can decide
for yourself, so I'll do it and [z]").

Love (be it eros, philia or even agape) is no excuse to abuse. Good intentions
don't make an excuse for incompetence.

------
rlpb
"As an evangelical Christian university of The Wesleyan Church, Oklahoma
Wesleyan University models a way of thought, a way of life, and a way of
faith. It is a place of serious study, honest questions, and critical
engagement, all in the context of a liberal arts community that honors the
Primacy of Jesus Christ, the Priority of Scripture, the Pursuit of Truth, and
the Practice of Wisdom."

This sounds to me more like a church than a University.

~~~
facetube
If nothing else, it sounds like it's definitely a safe space for mythology.

~~~
CIPHERSTONE
This made me laugh. Well played.

------
teekert
Oh man, the amount of times I told students that maybe they don't belong in
university is quite high. I used to teach (alongside a prof) Physics for
Biologists. Constantly I'd get remarks like: "But what are we supposed to do
all these hours between class and homework guidance hours?" (What am I, your
entertainer??), "Why can't I use my graphical calculator, this is bull shit!",
This is not why I choose biology!", and my favorite "Why won't you just let me
fill in the formulas and work with the intermittent numbers?"

I'd tell them: You are an electron in it lowest possible energy and you want
get to your highest excited state without adding energy. That simply does not
work. If you can't handle it, perhaps you do not belong here where you are
actually challenged and are required to meet that challenge.

It was also crazy how often they complained but turned out not to have even
tried the homework on their own.

------
c0achmcguirk
Outstanding article on many counts. It also reminds me of a recent article I
read on Psychology Today [1] that talks about fragile students:

"Students are increasingly seeking help for, and apparently having emotional
crises over, problems of everyday life. Recent examples mentioned included a
student who felt traumatized because her roommate had called her a “bitch” and
two students who had sought counseling because they had seen a mouse in their
off-campus apartment. The latter two also called the police, who kindly
arrived and set a mousetrap for them."

[1] - [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-
learn/201509/de...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-
learn/201509/declining-student-resilience-serious-problem-colleges)

~~~
ams6110
Decades of pat advice to "seek counseling" rather than deal with it as the
answer to every problem, from the schoolyard fight to any other kind of
interpersonal problem, from "Dear Abby" and any number of more recent pop
psychologists, helecopter parents, to school and workplace policies, etc.
Funny to see that complaint in _Psychology Today_ , as they are probably as
guilty as anyone in bringing about this state of affairs.

------
ajmurmann
One thing I find very scary about this discussion is that in the past when we
talked about helping the situation of minorities no one had a problem
explaining what the issue is we are trying to solve. Now I'm very often
hearing things like "you are a white heterosexual male you won't
understand/have no right to talk about it". This is just more racism and
sexism and no way to have a discussion or a good direction for a society. It
seems irrational and hate driven.

------
jMyles
It doesn't help that campuses increasingly operate like day cares: they treat
adult students like children.

A great example is orientation. Throughout the US, until fairly recently (at
my Alma Mater, SUNY New Paltz - it was 1973), orientation was 100% run by
students with no state or 'administrative' involvement.

And it was an adult event. It involved camping, orienteering, and serious
discussions about the life ahead. Now that the state is involved, it's a
cringey PG-13 experience that leaves students completely disoriented and
feeling like children.

The same is true of the way Student Union buildings are run today. And
residence life. And university police. And campus dining. And many other
facets of student life.

~~~
sotojuan
I wonder how much this has to do with the general baby-ing of people of all
ages. Kids don't play outside in the woods any more, parents pick up kids from
their bus stops, etc. Is this because parents complained?

~~~
jMyles
I can't speak, or at least not much, to the changes that occurred in the 70's.

But they are still happening today, and they are decidedly NOT in response to
parents. At all. In fact, parents have very little power to effect change at a
SUNY school as far as I can tell.

Rather, these seem to be directives coming from Albany (or beyond) and
disseminated at conferences that are attended by Student Life "professionals."

For example, go to just about any state school (including a SUNY) and take a
walk around the Student Union. I'll bet that you'll notice that it is swarming
with state officials - typically students who work part time for the state in
a "Student Activities" office.

Maybe you'll see one of their managers, a "Director of Student Union Services"
or something similar. Ask how many people worked in that office 10 years ago
vs. today, and I'll bet that, more often than not, you'll find that the size
of these offices have increased by 50% or more during that time.

The consequence is that student governments, who traditionally ran all the
operations of Student Unions and did a great job of it, are now pushed out of
this function, in favor of state officials and state directives running them
instead.

And these state directives almost always include infantifacation of events and
decor in the Student Union.

I have observed this phenomenon at SUNY New Paltz, Binghamton University, the
University of Connecticut, UMD College Park (although the food co-cop there is
amazing and serves as a partial counter-example) and half a dozen other
campuses.

Every time I ask about it, I'm told that it's part of a nationwide trend.

It's bullshit. It's _very_ expensive (compared to the shoestring 2.5-3.5
million dollar budgets that student governments typically work with) and it's
making Student Unions spiritually and academically hollow.

~~~
sotojuan
Interesting, I have noticed the same at my university and frankly I don't see
the point of those jobs. All they do is raise tuition.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I suspect that there are two points to those jobs. The not-really-stated point
is that they keep the university from being sued for some student having bad
judgment, by not letting the students have _any_ judgment. The absolutely-not-
stated point is that somebody got a cushy, well-paying job.

~~~
jMyles
I don't know the legal configuration of other states, but in SUNY, the SUNY
administration is not liable for action or inaction on the part of student
government.

Sadly, the SUNY administration is largely not liable for action or inaction on
the part of state officials either, who, in my experience, make worse
decisions than students or faculty 100% of the time.

(As some folks here already know,) I sued SUNY after being kicked out of
school in an act of unambiguous political retaliation, and although I won an
injunction, forcing my reinstatement, the state officials involved were
granted complete immunity from suit.

These events are documents in a documentary, Campus Coup:

[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11F04BB4661C2CC3](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11F04BB4661C2CC3)

------
wmichelin
I think that this article is fantastic. It highlights what is wrong with all
the political correctness going on. To an extent, it is necessary. People
shouldn't be made to feel bad about race, gender, or sexuality, but once you
start to coddle them, you aren't helping them grow as individuals. People in
the real world will treat you like crap, no matter what.

~~~
coldpie
> People in the real world will treat you like crap, no matter what.

Why should we accept this?

~~~
jonlucc
We shouldn't and don't. In fact, if someone is making you feel unsafe at work
(especially if it's because of your gender, race, etc), HR has a
responsibility to address it.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
> HR has a responsibility to address it

HR has the responsibility to protect the firm from legal dangers, so don't be
surprised if their solution involves the plaintiff being fired.

~~~
dragonwriter
> HR has the responsibility to protect the firm from legal dangers, so don't
> be surprised if their solution involves the plaintiff being fired.

Retaliation in response to a complaint exacerbates, rather than mitigates, the
legal danger to the firm.

------
rquantz
The President of Wesleyan University in Connecticut had a nice response to
this kind of nannyish article.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-
sheet/wp/2015/11/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-
sheet/wp/2015/11/20/sick-of-hearing-about-pampered-students-with-coddled-
minds-this-university-president-is/)

------
jmcmichael
We treat our universities like sanctuaries of learning, and the best ones
shield their students from many of the uncertainties and dangers of life while
they (ideally) spend their time learning to be valuable members of society.

Some of the cries of victimization sound way overblown. I would agree that
shutting down the process of learning itself, such as when students attempt to
stop professors or others from topical intellectual discussions, runs counter
to the primary goal of universities.

However, many of the attacks on these students as a group looks like attempts
to de-legitimize the victims of racism and bigotry. The minorities who have
been revealing systemic bias, bigotry, and racism at these universities are
the students who started and sustain the current protests.

Do not conflate the cause of those fighting against campus racism, bigotry,
and bias with those who seek to shut down the the process of learning at the
sign of the tiniest challenging or upsetting idea. The core group of
protestors desire to be accorded the same protections and positive learning
environment that white students have. That some have used this movement as a
vehicle for lending power to their own neuroses and anxieties should not in
any way detract from us from paying attention and doing something about the
systemic bias that these protests and subsequent reports have revealed.

------
laotzu
This is known as the victim mentality, and it is not so strictly limited to
higher education as is stereotyped.

The victim mentality is a social engineering tactic commonly used in
mainstream media which has cascading effects on all levels of society and has
been used for manipulative purposes by the ruling class, both religious and
political, for ages.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_mentality#History_and_p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_mentality#History_and_politics)

>Any person capable of angering you becomes your master; he can anger you only
when you permit yourself to be disturbed by him.

-Epictetus

------
maldusiecle
Oklahoma Wesleyan is an "evangelical Christian university," and if it's
anything like the other evangelical universities I'm aware of, it's not much
better than a daycare. Institutions like this exist to isolate their students
from the dangerous "secular" ideas they might pick up at a normal university.
And many of the students going there, are there because their parents have
refused to pay for a normal university. A friend of mine went to one of these
institutions, and reported that one of the mandatory classes was a semester-
long course in creationism.

Needless to say, I find this article pretty rich.

------
klagermkii
I do find it a pity that people on both sides feel that their points are so
"common sense" correct that they have no reason to educate, and that people
who disagree are being somehow deliberately obtuse. I think sometimes they
feel it justifies to people the use of strawmen, because it's almost not worth
their time dealing with such obviousness.

The whole idea of "being yourself" has a lot of nuance that has been left
unaddressed. Where do we draw the line between things that we should be
expected to change, vs what the world must learn to accept? How much
obligation does the world have on accepting us for who we are, and how much
pressure are they allowed to put on us to change? Is "being yourself" even an
ideal state vs chasing ones potential? How do you avoid crippling guilt if
you're always chasing an elusive ideal? How do you learn to like yourself if
you're never what you should be? If you aren't chasing improvement in yourself
does it just end up turning into decay?

I think it's a really difficult subject while both sides are screaming "DUH!"
at each other.

~~~
alvarosm
Of course every subject is incredibly difficult if you're drowning in moral
relativism and are thus incapable of judicious thought.

This is not about "being yourself"-euphemism for doing as you please with
utter disregard for everything including yourself-, this is about taking
responsibility for your actions, about having the honesty and strong enough
morals to judge.

The "being yourself" vs "chasing one's potential" you talk about is the
difference between animal and human.

------
CrimsnBlade
>Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and
narcissistic.

I have to say I tend to agree with this statement. I feel like every day I see
more and more of the younger generation (~25 and younger) acting entitled to
everything. Even in elementary schools, it is no longer the child's fault for
acting up, but somehow the teacher's fault, which is a complete 180 from what
it used to be.

I have to side with Dr. Piper on this one. The student chose to go to this
university, I assume the student also tries to adhere to the Christian
beliefs. If this is the case then Dr. Piper is absolutely right. It's not his
job to coddle these students and make them feel good. If they are there to
learn about Christianity and follow the beliefs that go along with it then
they should expect to be corrected when their actions contradict that of the
religion they desire to follow. Being humbled is just a part of it.

If I may be bold enough to give this student another verse to look at:

Proverbs 13:10 "Where there is strife, there is pride, but wisdom is found in
those who take advice."

------
ap22213
I call B.S.

I looked up this "1 Corinthians 13", and I have severe doubts that a "student
came forward ... feeling uncomfortable" about this homily. By itself, I have
doubts. But, the fact that a president of a university would call out a
student on something like that? I severely doubt that this event had even
happened.

It's easy to conjure up a unknown stranger to fit some stereotype that one
wants to call out as a straw man. This is a pretty common (and shady) tactic.

More likely, this is just political propaganda. Or maybe C.Y.A.?

------
al2o3cr
"if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn"

If you want to do that, you gotta stick around long enough to get the title
"President of Someplace Nobody's Heard Of" first.

------
steve-benjamins
This is just a rant. I would expect more from a University president.

------
chrisra
Being offended is not a condition imposed by another. It is a choice, and
being offended is avoidable. My response to that student would be something
like, "Isn't that great? Now you know how to repent." Might still warrant some
research to see if the professor/preacher was overly harsh - I don't really
like the emphasis on guilt, though it is important to recognize when you are
wrong.

------
bovermyer
Ignoring everything else about this article, its context, and my personal
feelings about Christian "education," I can't help but feel like the author is
not terribly professional.

Universities frequently forget that their instructors and their students have
entered into a business transaction with them. Students expect to receive a
useful education, and instructors expect to have their research and
publication subsidized, and the university expects to receive payment from the
former and quality of service from the latter.

Anything that disrupts that transaction - such as university presidents
getting huffy that "kids these days are too sensitive" \- tends to cause a
failure of the end result of all three components: education itself.

I wish more tertiary-institution administrators realized that they're
operating a business, not some kind of wisdom dispensary that students should
feel grateful for being allowed to attend.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Perhaps that missive will succeed tangentially, in making students think about
why they are there. That's education too.

------
p0la
There is a lot of press about this "Yale problem" type of stories but I live
in Europe where I find kids fearless and aggressive. I find this type of
reasoning very hard to relate to.

Do you feel this type of behaviour is affecting a majority of NA youth ? Or is
it more media looking at what could be the very beggining of a trend ?

~~~
DanBC
There's a few examples in some of the London universities.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11573646/...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11573646/Students-
union-backs-excluding-white-people-from-anti-racism-events.html)

[http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/goldsmiths-student-
div...](http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/goldsmiths-student-diversity-
officer-bans-white-people-and-men-from-anti-racism-protest-
meeting-10198693.html)

~~~
p0la
Thanks for the links! Indeed I missed that :D But Goldsmiths is an art school,
and I guess it's fine if artists and creative have a more developed
sensitivity and require more conforting environment. In the case of the Yale
issue, I understood that about 740 people from very different background
signed an open letter... I feel it's very different than a handful of Union
representant in an Art School.

------
johnhenry
If I can take a stab a summarizing the article: A follower of a religious
organization disagrees with the message put forth, so an official from that
organization condemns the follower's views?

Since there really isn't much more information than that, I can only guess
that students at OKWU aren't expected to be critical of the curriculum, and
that the administration isn't terribly willing to accept this criticism,
possibly due to it's biblical emphasis, but I feel like many institutes,
religious or not, have this problem. Take the case of Fullerton's Math
department earlier this year.

Another thing that bothers me is that the story could be anecdotal -- the lack
of detail makes me suspicious as to whether it's true, or just propaganda that
the author is using to enforce that students should accept what they are
taught without question.

------
return0
I wonder how "real" is this "safe space" trend that the US is talking about
lately. Is it an actual thing or a passing trend which will be forgotten till
summer?

In any case its one of the weirdest things ever, older generations accusing
the younger of not being radical enough. Perhaps the youths are right though,
some freedoms are just too much, we don't need to exert them, the same way we
don't need privacy anymore. There is value in safety, familiarity, coziness,
instead of being out in the open wind. It's perhaps some kind of alienation
towards multiculturalism/multiethnicism, and the constant bickering that comes
with democracy.

Safe spaces come at a cost though, as they inevitably turn to a form of
terrorism, radical religious extremist groups for example begin with the
formation of safe walled gardens in their communities.

------
jonkiddy
I think there is some irony in the title/content of that post and a particular
verse in 1 Cor 13 (which was the referenced cause of the issue).

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned
like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." 1
Cor 13:11

------
netcan
I don't live in the states, and this whole trigger warnings, safe-place and
extreme sensitivity politically correct or otherwise that is being talked
about all of a sudden was/is surprising to me. I didn't think The US is where
something like this would take hold.

I've spoken to a few people who experience universities in the US recently and
heard very different views. One was that young americans are more political
than they had ever been. Another thought it was us peering into the world of
internet thought bubble generations, people who "grew up" within one. Another
thought it was plain intolerance in a literal sense, very little ability to
tolerate others that they find in any way offensive..

Not sure what to make of it. Curious.

------
acomjean
When I was at university they had Prime Minister Farrakhan speak. Many people
were very mad, uncomfortable, large protests ensued. Despite the protests it
was packed. I was on the newpaper assigned to shoot the protest. There was
also a debate about if a public university should pay someone that much who is
that controversial (also brought up how much the basketball coach makes, often
times they are the highest paid public employees in a US state).

It was a learning experience. Wonder 20 years later what would happen if they
tried bring someone that controversial in.

------
zwischenzug
Couldn't (s)he have used Socratic discourse to show the complainant the
absurdity of his point of view?

------
skywhopper
I Corinthians 13 is indeed a great and laudable passage. But I suspect there
was something more in the sermon that triggered the complaint.

As for victimization and oversensitivity, I agree that it's a good thing to be
subjected to challenging viewpoints when you're at a university. It's also
important to have a platform for responding to viewpoints you don't like. I
suspect that attendance at sermons is required at Oklahoma Wesleyan, and I
further suspect that students are strongly discouraged from publicly espousing
views contrary to the content of those sermons. This doesn't make for a
healthy university setting.

That said, writing childish outrage screeds lambasting "victim culture" is not
exactly a noble or loving response to the student's complaint. This essay
sounds like it was written in about five minutes while in full rage mode about
the "kids these days".

The "victim culture" accusation alwasy strikes me as sadly ironic coming from
a political wing that claims victimization of the overwhelming majority
relgion and culture due to the design of Starbucks cups, the use of the phrase
"Happy Holidays", or the existence of mosques. I think the word is
"projection"...

Edit/Update: After browsing some other articles in the OKWU "News" section,
I'm sorry to see this overtly political screed was posted to Hacker News at
all. This university appears to be a branch of Fox News, rather than an
educational institution.

------
jdeisenberg
I parted company with the article at this line: "The primary objective of the
Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-
actualization." That's at odds with education, which should have a goal of
assisting you in living up to your full potential. (Acknowledging guilt of
wrongdoing can be part of living up to one's potential, but I don't consider
it a primary goal of education.)

------
ceejayoz
1 Corinthians 13 is a pretty uncontroversial passage. Hell, it's a favorite of
mine, and I'm an atheist.

I'm a little curious about the actual complaint, and if Dr. Piper had any sort
of productive discussion with the student. The standard "we're all sinners,
but we must try" sort of thing seems the obvious starting approach.

~~~
fixermark
In this particular instance, Dr. Piper may want to reference 1 Corinthians 14.

""" So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue,
how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the
air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of
them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is
saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me.
"""

Dr. Piper has not reached this student, and I fear that his heavy-handed
approach means he will not reach this student. Sad.

------
bobthechef
Part of being an adult is realizing that you are powerless. It's a break from
self-centered megalomania and "show" mentality. Part of being an adult is
embracing suffering and pain. They are instructive. They are gifts. They teach
us about ourselves and others and the world. Embrace them. Be grateful. Accept
them humbly. Be humble. Only pride refuses pain and becomes indignant, says it
is "too good" for it. Only pride boasts or complains about pain. Only pride
conceals and deceives--itself!--at the altar of self. Only pride turns pain
into some grandiose undertaking. Only pride wallows in self-pity. Only pride
assaults others in self-righteousness and entitlement.

Life is the crucible in which pain and suffering are just another way you are
made better...if you accept them and kill, and resolve to kill, your pride.

------
kordless
> Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and
> narcissistic

Actually, children are necessarily and healthily narcissistic. They need this
to help them move from a codependent relationship with their parents to a more
balanced one as the turn into adults. Blaming them for this trait is
ridiculous.

~~~
tdkl
You forgot about responsibilities. Being a little bitch isn't a trait.

------
jccc
The subject of the sermon to which the student objected was 1 Corinthians 13,
about "love."

It would be helpful to know what the student was actually claiming made
her/him feel victimized, because given the nature of the university it's easy
to imagine how the talk might have included at least some implicit comment
about sexuality.

[http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2015/11/pat-campbell-and-dr-
piper-o...](http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2015/11/pat-campbell-and-dr-piper-on-
gender-identity/)

EDIT: Point being that the story as told by the president is likely to differ
from the reality. Could the student have simply come forward to say, hey look
there are in fact LGBT students here, I don't agree with this interpretation
of scripture, just want to make it known.

------
athenot
I think this is an interesting side-effect of being hyperconnected: no matter
what the position is, i's possible to find a group of people who will
empathize with us and make us _feel_ right. I guess it goes back to the old
saying of picking our friends wisely…

------
force_reboot
Focus in safe spaces and crybaby students is very misguided. Anyone student
can claim that they are victimized or feel "unsafe" for any reason, but these
claims will be filtered through academics, media and the university
administration, which will judge these claims based on a specific political
ideology. Before there were "safe spaces", you could still fail a mandatory
sociology class for disagreeing with feminism or anti-racism[0], or face
disciplinary charges for the same reasons. And professors could be removed or
disciplined for the same.

[0] by which I mean the narrative states that implicit racism is all around
us.

------
markmcdonald
Are there any evangelical christians that have a critical assessment of this
piece? I'm no longer a part of the church, but a few phrases strike me as
strange ("An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to
make you feel guilty."; "The primary objective of the Church and the Christian
faith is your confession, not your self-actualization."; "Anyone who dares
challenge them and, thus, makes them “feel bad” about themselves, is a
“hater,” a “bigot,” an “oppressor,” and a “victimizer.”) I'd be interested in
hearing your opinion.

~~~
collinmanderson
"The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your
confession" \- Yes, that seems a bit extreme. (Though I'm Catholic, not
"Evangelical" in the sense you mean). Offending people is ok, but I hope the
_goal_ isn't to make people feel guilty. :)

------
bobthechef
The old word for "safe-space" used to be "mental hospital". Seriously, if you
think you can hold the world hostage to your issues, you are sadly deluded,
sadly arrogant, and sadly self-centered. It's worse than childish. It's crazy.
And no amount of Oprah-style false compassion can conceal that.

As for the horrifying collectivism and grandiose, mobbish character of the
comments, direct the dagger inward at your own pride, arrogance, self-
righteousness, and depraved views, as a personal goal of your life. Mind your
own business. There is no "we".

~~~
DanBC
> The old word for "safe-space" used to be "mental hospital".

No it didn't.

------
fisk
To be fair, delusions about a magic sky monster are infantile.

~~~
vlehto
To be fair, delusions about climate change are infantile.

------
xmlblog
"The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your
confession, not your self-actualization." That would be healthy if the
confession were the _vehicle_ to self-actualization. Talk about confusing the
means and the end. Too bad, because everything before that point was perfectly
said.

------
dragonwriter
Regardless of the content, it seems to me that if someone came forward to
complain to you, the time and place to deliver the message you had in response
was when they came forward with the complaint. Yeah, it's a university, not a
daycare, and as such a direct adult dialogue about the issue should be
expected. A public letter like this from the university President is
appropriate for a broad issue that goes beyond someone raising a personal
complaint (which this letter provides no hint of), such as a public
controversy directed at the university.

Given the scenario the letter itself lays out, the act of responding by such a
public letter is at least as childish, thin-skinned, and inappropriate for a
university environment where all participants (especially the administration)
are supposed to be adults as the complaint it describes.

And given the specific subject of the complaint and response, it really sounds
like the author could do with some of their own reflection on 1 Cor 13:4-5. As
well as Gal 6:1 and Lk 6:42.

If you want to instill virtue, it is far more important to exhibit it than it
is to lecture about it, though the latter has its place.

~~~
avemg
Why do you assume he didn't? It's quite possible to have this conversation one
on one and then use it as an opportunity to address a wider audience. They are
not mutually exclusive.

~~~
dragonwriter
I conclude that he didn't address the student personally and directly with
this message from the fact that he expressly framed the public response as a
message intended for that student as well as others, rather than a public
recitation for others of a message he had delivered to the complaining student
in person.

------
VikingCoder
This is not a day care! So sit down and feel guilty while I tell you about the
invisible man who lives in the sky and judges your for touching your genitals.
This 2,000 year old book is filled with magic recipes for living after you are
dead, and you should grow up and listen to them.

------
BrandoElFollito
I find it fascinating that a university in the US can be so religious and yet
have a curriculum in, say, physics. I hope they do not have conflicts of
interest when it comes to use good and gravity in the same sentence.

~~~
hk__2
FYI Newton was a very religious person. Wikipedia even has a whole article
dedicated to his religious views.

~~~
BrandoElFollito
Newton is from ca. 1700. I am taking about the world today.

------
licoricetic
Facts of the underlying matter aside, this is an incredible immature piece
that I expect from a young student who hasn't learned logic and rhetoric or
didactics, not a University President.

------
mziulu
[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/663481837197631488](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/663481837197631488)

------
xacaxulu
Your learning ends where my feelings begin. I'm so glad I wasn't in school
when everyone was pandered to. This is the dumbing down of the American mind
in process.

------
bmking
Relevant article:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10599513](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10599513)

------
tuxguy
Irrespective of whether you agree with the article, the tone is very
condescending. Coming from a university president, it shows OWU in very poor
light imho.

------
a-saleh
I am reading a response of a pastor to a students complaint on a sermon.

If I could read the sermon, or the complaint, I could comment on the response
to the complaint.

------
ilamont
_The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your
confession_

I was surprised to see this. Is that an evangelical Christian belief?

~~~
pgeorgi
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins
and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)

That doesn't mean that these sins need to be confessed in the presence of a
priest or something like that (as in the Roman Catholic Church), but given how
God's forgiveness is what Christianity is all about, confession is a somewhat
important corollary.

Assuming that God's forgiveness isn't something humans can produce while
confession is, "primary objective" may be a pretty good description.

------
pervycreeper
Not to be confused with Wesleyan University, N.B.

------
byuu
Funny, here I thought a place teaching the story of Noah's Ark as literal
truth _was_ a day care and not a university.

------
icebraining
Yet another post for HN to one-up each other decrying the "PC culture" with
plenty of "kids these days" rants, while completely avoiding taking the
charitable position and putting ourselves in their shoes.

The amount of hypocrisy that comes with the claims that these students should
"learn to cope with uncomfortable ideas" is staggering. Guess what: these
students are presenting us with an "uncomfortable idea" and the response has
been nothing but knee-jerk.

Well done, everyone.

~~~
Juliate
The idea that people's feelings should come first (especially before
truth/understanding of reality) is not uncomfortable, but a dangerous,
misleading, childish posture.

University is for adults, not toddlers.

~~~
vdaniuk
>University is for adults, not toddlers.

Oh really, so university students are able to consume alcohol, right?

edit:

noun: adult;

\- a person who is fully grown or developed.

\- a person who has reached the age of majority.

edit 2:

"Longitudinal neuroimaging studies demonstrate that the adolescent brain
continues to mature well into the 20s. This has prompted intense interest in
linking neuromaturation to maturity of judgment."

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/)

~~~
vixen99
So what? University still remains a place for adults. All sorts of odd laws
and regulations pertain to institutions and other organizations
notwithstanding.

~~~
vdaniuk
University remains a place for adults who are not legally recognized as adults
but are expected to fully act as adults. So consistent, much logic.

~~~
fixermark
You're conflating a binary with a continuum.

The dominant American culture is not one with a single consistently-applied
rite of passage to adulthood. Over about a decade, people go though multiple
transitions (age of majority, voting age, drinking age---heck, a lot of people
even recognize the age at which rental car companies stop applying a "You're
probably a dangerous driver" surcharge, at 25 years old).

~~~
vdaniuk
Yes, adulthood is a continuum. That's why it's wrong to say that college is
for "adults". Some of students are very immature, some have more wisdom than
older people. So I am not disagreeing with your point of view.

~~~
Juliate
I see your point now, not disagreeing either.

Meant adult as a contrast to toddlers (whom feelings and sense of security we
do care about, for good reasons) and as a status that you target, grow into
and nurture, especially more at the university (and hopefully after as well).

------
mdip
Interesting read - there's a lot of back and forth between the so-called SJWs
and the anti-PC crowd and it's becoming reminiscent of every generational
battle I've listened to in my life.

Every adult has screamed about the "Next Generation" being softer or not as
capable as the current. I think it's a lack of adults remembering how they
were when they were young. I'm "Gen X", the naming of which was often
(incorrectly) attributed to aimlessness: "The Unknown Generation" (the real
naming reason has a much less arrogant reason).

I am concerned about the seeming "addiction to Victimhood" that appears[1] to
be plaguing generations below me, however, I'm about as concerned about it as
I would be any trivial thing. Success (however it's defined) requires one to
figure out how to navigate the perceived injustices and figure out how to
carve out a life. We did; they will, too. Hopefully it'll happen without a
bunch of new legislation under the guise of Justice but with the result of
further erosion of freedom.

There's one, key, difference between today's screaming and the screaming of
generations past: Reach. Just like the current crop of over-protective parents
dreaming that crime is so much worse these days than it was when we were kids
(when in reality many crimes against children occur with half the frequency
they did when we were young), the screaming about injustice is much more
visible. This serves two negative purposes: we perceive that the entire
generation of kids is a bunch of weak, whining losers based on a handful of
folks with extreme positions and those striving for an identity see an
opportunity to jump on the large (again, perceived) bandwagon and get some
attention. Everyone has an opportunity to be heard and it's up to each of us
to set our filters appropriately. Unfortunately, Critical Thinking is
something that is often absent or ignored[2].

[1] "Appears" being the operative word. Though I've read many articles, I tend
to surround myself with people who fit the age-range and socioeconomic status
of the typical Victimhood addict and I don't see any of these traits in them.
Anecdote, yes, but so many of the news stories are based on little more
evidence.

[2] That sounds like a dig; it's not meant to be. I believe Critical Thinking
is a fancy way of saying "wisdom" and is something that is acquired through
experience, is rarely teachable (if it's even attempted to be taught) and is
often forgotten in the face of highly-emotional arguments. It's the sort of
thing that changes the phrase "Founders with heavy accents are rarely in the
top 100 start-ups" into "I think people who don't speak English are dumb".
Over time, and with experience at your back, you (hopefully) learn to be slow
to ascribe malice to another's actions and give people the benefit of the
doubt. Everyone communicates differently and I think most of us intend the
best, not the worst.

------
ianwalter
This is so useless. Why is it here?

------
michaelrhansen
oh man - I thought this article might just break hacker news the minute I saw
the title.

------
iokevins
Per Wikipedia, Oklahoma Wesleyan University serves about 900 students and is
an evangelical Christian university of the Wesleyan Church located in
Bartlesville, in the U.S. state of Oklahoma. Their motto is "A university
where Jesus is Lord." In this article, conservative OKWU president Dr. Everett
Piper seems to dismiss the concerns of one student, calling for more sermons
full of guilt and shame, as a tool to get confessions of sins.

~~~
flatline
I honestly don't think he was being dismissive. I think he was acknowledging
that the student's uncomfortable feelings were legitimate, even deliberately
provoked, and offered a prescription for how to best handle them. This is
(one) Christian message, and presumably one that the students at that school
knowingly signed up for (well, their parents did, at any rate). I'm not a huge
fan of self-blaming guilt, it tends to be just as self-indulgent as feeling
violated by some sermon, but a sense of shame at one's shortcomings can be a
useful guide for self growth and development. I am neither conservative nor a
Christian but I find that I generally agree with his sentiment.

~~~
iokevins
Thanks for taking the time to share these thoughts; I appreciate it. His
comments resonate with a non-trivial number of people. Since they discuss
human values we all share, that makes sense, to me. With respect to feelings
of guilt and shame, I'm completely in agreement that they can represent a
wake-up call to further self growth--but only insofar as we can link them to
the human needs they are telling us to pay attention to. That's where the self
growth occurs. I'm not in agreement with using guilt and shame, as tools to
get people to obey or submit, because doing so focuses our attention on _what_
we want people to do, not _why_ we want them to do it. They're both important;
without the latter, it's just obedience training. I think we're pretty close
in our assessment, so I'll leave it, at that. Thanks again.

------
deltanine
i thought this was hacker talk? can someone PLEASE talk about hacking ffs?!

------
deltanine
how is this hacker talk? can someone _PLEASE_ talk about hacking ffs?!

------
lghh
I have a friend who attended OKWU a few years ago. She shared this piece on
Facebook in approval. From what I know from her education there, this place is
essentially a "safe-space" for Christians. If you say anything negative about
the religion or its teachings, you are kicked out. If you don't follow its
rules, you are kicked out. If you drink, smoke, have premarital sex, are
lgbtq, don't follow their strict ethics code you are kicked out. Their
philosophy classes are all Biblical, if you question them you are kicked out.
Until a few years ago, you could major in something that amounted to being a
'preacher's wife' (I can't remember the name of the major, but that was its
goal).

Isn't this just an extreme safe-space for Christianity? It's exactly what
they're arguing against, but backs up their worldview so it's not an issue.

It's honestly baffling because I am sure there are hundreds of very smart
people there who must realize this, including the professors and
administration.

~~~
aggieben
There's a stark difference between a free and voluntary association of like-
minded people and a so-called "safe space", which uses a pretext of
"victimization" to capriciously thought control others who simply committed
the offense of disagreeing or criticizing. If you hate Christianity, why would
you go to this school? If you aren't willing to follow behavioral rules, why
would you go to this school? If you think philosophy should only be secular,
then why would you go to this school? Schools like this generally make no
secret of their expectations for students and faculty.

 _If you say anything negative about the religion or its teachings, you are
kicked out._

Really? Citation please; I simply don't believe this. Most Christian
universities that I have any knowledge of invite (or at least aren't averse to
it) tough discussion, and allow for a pretty wide range of critical thought
about interpretations of the Bible, how Christianity should relate to
politics, culture, science, and many other subjects.

 _Until a few years ago, you could major in something that amounted to being a
'preacher's wife' (I can't remember the name of the major, but that was its
goal)._

And this is evidence of what, exactly?

"Safe-spaces", on the other hand, are cudgels of fear, handed to anyone
claiming "victimization" to be capriciously used against people with whom they
simply disagree and want to shut up. The reason they're even a thing is
because school administrators themselves are beholden to the same fear. That's
not at all like free association.

~~~
warfangle
There's a stark difference between what people who dislike the concept of
"safe space" think a "safe space" is and what a "safe space" actually is.

A "safe space" is a place where you know you aren't going to be singled out
and harmed (verbally or physically) by someone telling you that you're a queer
faggot and deserve to die.

A "safe space" is a place where people can discuss the actual issues of
hatred, bigotry and violence without fear of reprise for being the hated, the
attacked, the marginalized.

There's a stark difference between "This isn't a place for saying hurtful
things; this is a place for talking about why saying those things are hurtful.
That's why we're not letting you in here while you continue to marginalize the
oppressed. Let's talk about why you think the oppressed should be marginalized
instead."

All the anti-safe-space discussion on Hacker News lately is truly, horribly,
fucking disgustingly indicative of the inherent sexism and flat-out hatred
that worms its way through developer culture.

They are absofuckinglutely not cudgels of fear. And people who claim they are
need to take a real fucking hard look at themselves and their views on those
who are verbally bullied, physically attacked, raped, and murdered for being
who they fucking are.

~~~
aggieben
_A "safe space" is a place where you know you aren't going to be singled out
and harmed (verbally or physically) by someone telling you that you're a queer
faggot and deserve to die._

FWIW, this concept of safe space isn't quite what I had in mind. I think,
perhaps, what I failed to articulate is that the safe space concept that
grinds my gears is the kind that is an expectation carried around by people
who really do just want to shut other up. Professor said something they didn't
like? "Waaah...this classroom isn't a safe space". Group-I'm-not-a-part-of
says something they don't like? "Waaah...they're making my school a not-safe
place".

I have no problem with the idea of a physically-located place with heightened
expectations of civility.

~~~
warfangle
The professor is the one who brought up the safe place terminology in this
instance. Not the student.

One thing to realize, also, is the context of love (as the topic of discussion
in the classroom was in 1 Corinthians 13) in many evangelical circles.

Love, defined in many conservative christian circles, is devotion to the
Church, the Husband and God, to the exclusion of all else. Even when it hurts.
It's about staying in an abusive relationship because you need to submit to
your husband's wishes, no matter what. It is not the selfless emotional
connection of one person to another. It is the subjugation of the self.

This student may very well have felt victimized for how love was being talked
about. But all we know about the classroom discussion was that the topic was 1
Corinthians 13. Not what was actually talked about with regard to that
chapter. I've heard 1 Corinthians 13 be twisted in some very evil ways.

~~~
brightball
"Love, defined in many conservative christian circles, is devotion to the
Church, the Husband and God, to the exclusion of all else."

Please do not read any tone into what I'm saying here, because if you've
gotten that message I honestly don't know how. "A new commandment I give to
you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love
one another." \- John 13:34

The verse you reference above is in the context of marriage and you hear it a
lot at weddings, but the context of love within Christian community is always
going to go straight to the way that Jesus defined it. There's no part of the
Christian community that is going to try to override what Jesus said. "Just as
I have loved you" means unconditionally. It doesn't mean as long as they agree
with you, have the same color skin as you, speak the same language as you or
fit some specific stencil.

I realize this is a bit off-kilter for Hacker News but sermons that talk about
how we are all sinners in need of forgiveness are there specifically for two
reasons.

1\. No matter what you have done, God will forgive you. No matter what you
have done, God loves you.

2\. Because God will forgive the worst of us who truly asks for forgiveness,
we have no right to deny forgiveness to anyone who truly asks for it either.

I've visited a lot of different churches throughout the southeast in my life
and I've never once heard a minister say anything that implies anything other
than the above.

~~~
warfangle
A lot of the very right-wing evangelical churches do.

I grew up in one. They use words that mean one thing to everyone else but mean
(via subtext) another thing entirely to the in-group.

That's why I specifically called out that kind of church; I thought I was
careful about that. I've been in many churches that are amazing, wonderful
places. But I've been to other churches (usually PCA) that can be downright
evil.

Edit: this wasn't about skin color, but more LGBTQ/nonbelievers. They're a
very different breed of bigot than Those Who Wear Sheets.

------
alvarosm
At least someone still has a bit of common sense.

------
tdkl
I'm not religious, but this is spot on _slow clap_.

------
xacaxulu
This article's title should have trigger warnings.

~~~
chad_strategic
what are trigger warnings? Clickbait warnings?

