The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, Penguin, 2018, ISBN: 978-0-7352-2489-6
Authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt are uniquely qualified to analyze educational policies on free speech. As a graduate of American University and Stanford Law School, Lukianoff went on to become president and CEO of the nonpartisan Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), where he specializes in First Amendment issues. Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind and The Happiness Hypothesis, is a social psychologist who serves as New York University’s Stern School of Business Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership.
Lukianoff and Haidt open by introducing the hygiene hypothesis, which claims that as societies become wealthier and therefore cleaner, they minimize citizens’ exposure to microbes. Thought to improve health, these changes actually weaken immune systems, making people more vulnerable to severe illnesses through lack of exposure to adversity. The authors point to the rise in peanut allergies as an example of what they call this “problem of progress” (13-14). Fear of peanut allergies led parents to protect children from exposure to any product potentially linked to peanuts. However, studies show that among children at highest risk for allergies, 17% who avoided peanut products developed peanut allergies compared to 3% of those exposed to small amounts over time (20).
Social psychology research reveals that the hygiene hypothesis also applies to mental-emotional health. Like peanut allergies, mental illness in children has risen sharply in recent decades. Researchers cite a shift in the definition of "safety" as the culprit. Historically, safety meant physical safety, but “concept creep” broadened the definition to include emotional safety and then emotional comfort, which pressures parents and educators to guarantee that children face no adversity and are always content (24-26). Within this “safetyism” culture, parents and educators “have been unknowingly teaching a generation of students to engage in the mental habits commonly seen in people who suffer from anxiety and depression” (10). Students protected from difficult, conflicting, or upsetting ideas become mentally and emotionally fragile, experiencing more symptoms of mental illness, while students exposed to a wide variety of ideas and adversity develop resilience (38, 84). Protective practices that harm students include campus safe spaces, cancellation of guest speakers, hyper-focus on race or ethnicity, microaggression prevention policies, and many others that have become common practice in U.S. schools. These practices prompt thought patterns contrary to critical thinking, such as emotional reasoning, dichotomous thinking, overgeneralization, mind reading, labeling, negative filtering, blaming, catastrophizing, and belief that “words are violence” (38, 84). They also drive narratives that portray race as America’s most divisive issue despite data from Pew Research Center showing that nationwide, identification with a political party is three times as divisive as race, religion, or gender (128-129). Additional data shows that divisiveness has increased as employers and educational system frameworks have moved to the far left of the political spectrum during the past two decades.
The authors provide the following evidence-based solutions for combating fragility:
(1) rethink identity politics, such as those touted by Critical Race Theory, which create division by focusing on differences and oppression instead of inclusion and ascension. The authors see hopeful signs that this solution is being implemented, stating that “more writers from many backgrounds are calling for a rethinking of identity politics” and are working to create “a common-humanity perspective” that matches the healthy social psychology principles Coddling describes and social psychology has grounded in research and practice (267).
(2) emphasize antifragility (resilience). The authors suggest parents and educators adhere to the adage “Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child” (263). They explain the benefits of cultivating cognitive dissonance by using common techniques from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (267).
(3) commit to truth instead of guaranteeing emotional safety. Lukianoff provides a FIRE statement that colleges can adopt:
“The [INSTITUTION’S] fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by
most members of the [INSTITUTION] community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the [INSTITUTION] community, not for [INSTITUTION], as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas they oppose.”
The authors conclude that the most important solution for building resilience is weaving viewpoint and political diversity throughout students’ educational experience.
Coddling is an essential book for educators of Generation Z (born between 1995-2009) and Generation Alpha (born since 2010). It encourages educators to develop and monitor their own critical thinking and information literacy skills, which is crucial in an era where social media holds so much sway and safetyism has become normal, and facilitating the same skills in students. Depending on students' age, portions of Coddling could be assigned as reading to prepare for discussion or comparison of past and current media covering parenting, education, politics/policy, culture, and many other topics. Ideally, Coddling should become required reading for educators at all levels. I'd like to see it implemented as an institution-wide book of the year for reading, discussion, and study.
Questions for Educator Professional Development Workshops
How does the hygiene hypothesis illustrate what the authors mean by "the coddling of the American mind"?
In what ways does the hygiene hypothesis fall short as a metaphor for the coddling of the mind?
Define "safetyism" and give an example of it from personal observation or experience.
What broad, societal implications of "safetyism"
Political and societal trends, especially related to parenting and education, often mimic a pendulum, swinging from one extreme to its opposite. (For example, one could argue that 1970s progressive policies and anti-war sentiment ushered in the 1980s conservative era.) Explain why you think that will or won't apply to safetyism.