April 15, 2019It is Tuesday, October 23, 2018, just another day for Megyn Kelly, a talk show host, journalist, and former anchor. She starts her day off like many others, at the set of Megyn Kelly Today. She has Jenna Bush Hager, Jacob Soboroff, and Melissa Rivers on as guests and she is fired up to talk about the latest controversy on Halloween costumes. Megyn Kelly reads off the many costumes the student union at Kent University (United Kingdom) deemed inappropriate to wear, such as cowboys, Native Americans, and nuns and she is outraged at the costumes that are labelled as “inappropriate and offensive.” The conversation then drifts into race, and Megyn Kelly says things she would soon come to regret. But were her comments really that offensive? You be the judge. (Watch minutes 4 through 6)
Megyn Kelly will no longer be seen on weekdays at NBC, 9:00 EST. She was fired for her comments on blackface which outraged her colleagues. Megyn Kelly is not a white supremacist or a racist. She made an honest mistake talking insensitively about a sensitive topic. Megyn Kelly admits that “we need to be more sensitive in this day and age,” and she is absolutely right. In today’s politically charged climate, Americans assume the worst of all people and comments and get offended by everything, almost as if they are trying to see who can get the most offended. Americans need to toughen up and stop being so easily offended. It is causing people to lose jobs, adding to the already tense environment, and affecting the livelihoods of people whose intention is not to offend.
College Campuses
Today, college campuses have become a breeding ground for people getting offended. In The Coddling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt talk about the creation of new terms such as “microaggressions” and “trigger warnings.” Microaggressions are short actions or statements that have no violent intent, but are still seen as malicious. Trigger warnings are cautions sent out by professors that try to prohibit strong emotional responses.
Now, why are the ideas of trigger warnings and microaggressions such a big deal? Well, they are stunting the learning of college students as well as creating a soft generation that can’t take a joke.
The use of trigger warnings on college campuses are giving students the option to listen to only what they want to hear, and nothing they consider “offensive.” [perfectpullquote align=”left” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Students feel as though they have the right to not listen to certain ideas because it would “trigger” or offend them.[/perfectpullquote]
This prohibits the students from learning the truth, and instead students must create their own truth. Being offended has just become an excuse not to learn on college campuses. Professors are becoming afraid to talk about race, religion, or gender because of how easy it is to offend their students and college students are becoming shielded from the real world. This creates a generation of adults who are soft and get easily offended.
James Moore, professor at the University of Southern California, had a rally organized against him calling for his firing after a controversial email he sent to students. What could have he possibly of said that would have gotten so many people upset? Well, in the email James Moore simply wrote that “accusers sometimes lie,” in reference to sexual assault charges. James Moore is correct and accusers do not always tell the truth. That statement shouldn’t be something considered offensive, but people wanted him fired because of what he said. Professors can’t even state facts on campus anymore without getting in trouble.
The term “microaggression” is also being used on college campuses and it is contributing to the sensitivity of the students. Students will label certain comments as microaggressions simply because they themselves get offended by it. These offended people then label the people who made the comments as racists and sexists and in turn can ruin those people’s lives. A simple joke with no harsh intentions can now get someone kicked out of their college.
Nick Lutz, a student at the University of Central Florida, was suspended for a joke he made on twitter. Lutz received an apology letter from his ex girlfriend and decided to point out all of its grammatical mistakes and post it to Twitter. The University of Central Florida deemed the tweet “disruptive” and “harmful” and suspended him. This is frankly violating Lutz’s right of free speech. How is someone supposed to know if what they do or say is going to get them in trouble? I find this outrageous and unconstitutional and I fear for college students everywhere.
A New York Times post titled “Campuses Cautiously Train Freshmen Against Subtle Insults” explains the opinion of the chief diversity officer at Clark University on microaggressions. Sheree Marlowe believes that doing things such as asking an Asian person for their math homework, asking a black person whether they play basketball or not, and addressing a group of men and women with the term “guys” is an attack on that person and considered a microaggression. Is there anything that can be said that won’t offend people today? People want to restrict what is said on college campuses to the point where nothing hurtful is said at all, but people will always find something to be offended about. We do not need to restrict the speech of college students, we need the people getting offended to grow up and stop getting offended by everything.
Another term used on college campuses is a “safe space.” A safe space is a designated area that a student can feel safe in and feel confident that they will not be discriminated against. Colleges such as the University of Minnesota have created safe spaces on campus where straight, white people are prohibited. Once again, students are being shielded from society because of their fear of new words and ideas.
Acquired from Pexels
College students are overly sensitive, weak human beings who think of themselves as victims and feel entitled to a life full of rainbows and unicorns.
Now, if this behavior stayed on college campuses it would not be a big deal. But students continue on with their lives while still being just as easily offended. Celebrities, as well as people in the media show the world every day that they can and will be offended by absolutely everything.
Being Offended in the Media
Since I have started writing this, two large stories in the media have come out supporting my topic, the first being Megyn Kelly and her comments on blackface. But, as I was writing this paper, a new, even more ridiculous story was released. Olympic gold medalist Shaun White decided to go as Simple Jack this year for Halloween, a character from the 2008 movie Tropic Thunder. Simple Jack is a mentally disabled character and people all around the media are outraged in Shaun White’s costume. The co founder of the Special Olympics even released a statement to Huffington Post stating his disappointment: “We are truly disappointed that Shaun White, an acclaimed Olympian, would choose this costume which is so offensive and causes so much pain. Disability is not a joke nor should it be a punchline. We hope that Shaun White and others learn that this just continues stigma, stereotypes and discrimination.”
As an American myself, I am afraid in the direction this country is going. There is not a single thing that any person can say or do anymore that will not offend anybody.
In today’s atmosphere, nobody knows what is considered offensive. Every day there are new things that make people angry and nobody can keep up with it. First, Megyn Kelly loses her job over comments about blackface. Next, an olympic gold medalist is bashed for a Halloween costume. [perfectpullquote align=”right” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]What happens next? Is Tom Hanks going to be labeled as an anti-Semitic, racist homophobe?[/perfectpullquote]
There is really no way of knowing in the rapidly changing society of today.
America is portrayed through its media, and every day someone new gets offended. More and more news stories come up that broadcast it live for anyone to see and it really shows what America is as a whole, a nation of self entitled clowns unwilling to listen to other opinions or ideas.
Now, is this the fault of the people getting offended, or do the offenders need to stop what they are doing. Richard A. Friedman of the New York Times believes that hate speech is fueling crime in America. He even suggests that the synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh which killed eleven jews could have been a result of hate speech from the President. Many people believe that hate speech should somehow be banned in America and that hate speech leads to violence. However, saying something that hurts someone’s feelings does not lead to violence. You can’t blame massacres on people who simply speak their minds to the media and you most certainly take someone’s 1st Amendment right of free speech away from them just to prevent hurt feelings.
Although I am quick to criticize Americans, I have not lost hope on our nation. I do not like the current sensitive climate we have in America and I hope for a more strong environment in which we can express our opinions and beliefs without getting major backlash. This can still be achieved today if we can all just chip in a little. Next time you hear a comment you don’t agree with, instead of attacking the person on social media, try to politely disagree or avoid saying anything at all. And college students, stop being so gosh darn sensitive. Stop hiding from facts because you are offended by them. You are the next generation of adults. Make a change.
And thank you reader, for taking the time to read this paper. You most likely just read opinions that you don’t entirely agree with, and you may have even been offended. And you know what, I hope you were offended by this. Take that anger and write a civil comment disagreeing with my opinion. It would be a good step in the right direction.
Featured image was acquired from Flickr
Prev Post
Regan
You have got to be kidding me. You — a white male — are really telling people to get less offended? Shocking. I am shocked. Honestly this is not your place. And don’t even bother telling me to calm down and stop taking things so personally. Your claims affect people’s lives. Straight, white, cisgender, males have historically been the perpetrators and offenders. So you are in no situation to tell anyone to get “less offended”. That is so harmful to so many communities. Your ignorance and indifference to social injustices within this article are undeniably offensive and harmful. Peoples cultures are not your costume. Peoples races are not your costume. Peoples disabilities are not your costume. And although you may not be directly saying that these incredibly offensive practices are acceptable, you are, however, defending people who are claiming these things. And that is where my issue with what you are saying arises. I have many more issues with what you are saying so I’d settle in.
I would like to organize this in order of claims you made in your blog as to not get muddled. First, you claimed that “Megyn Kelly is not a white supremacist or a racist”. You cannot claim this. You have no idea what her personal beliefs are and you, a white male, are in no state to claim that someone is not a racist when you have not personally experienced racism. She was defending people who did blackface, with full knowledge that it is a racist practice. You then claim that “Americans need to toughen up and stop being so easily offended. It is causing people to lose jobs, adding to the already tense environment,” I think you need to slow down and be a little more rational about this. If this woman’s job was to get on television and report news, then why was she asking how people found blackface offensive? If she made uneducated, racist claims on live television, at her job, somewhere she is expected to be professional, it is completely fair to fire her. That is not “getting too offended”, it is practical.
You then move on to microaggressions and trigger warnings. You state “The use of trigger warnings on college campuses are giving students the option to listen to only what they want to hear, and nothing they consider ‘offensive.’” In reality that is not at all what trigger warnings are for, and as a result you are undermining the necessity of them for people with mental disorders. According to an article by Inclusive Teaching: “Trigger warnings are a specific variety of content warning that attempt to forewarn audiences of content that may cause intense physiological and psychological symptoms for people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other anxiety disorders […] Content warnings and trigger warnings are not intended to censure instructors nor invite students to avoid material that challenges them. On the contrary, warning students of challenging material can help their engagement by giving them the ability to take charge of their own health and learning” (An Introduction to Content Warnings and Trigger Warnings). This shows that you claiming, “The use of trigger warnings on college campuses are giving students the option to listen to only what they want to hear, and nothing they consider ‘offensive’” is inaccurate and honestly offensive. Trigger warnings are to include warnings of “representations of sexual violence, oppressive language, gunshots, and representations of self-harm” (An Introduction to Content Warnings and Trigger Warnings). Trigger warnings make it so that people can learn in an environment where they can be free from panic/anxiety attacks and flashbacks.
Next, you discuss “that doing things such as asking an Asian person for their math homework, asking a black person whether they play basketball or not, and addressing a group of men and women with the term “guys” is an attack on that person and considered a microaggression. Is there anything that can be said that won’t offend people today?” Honestly there are many things to unload from this statement, for everything relies on the intent behind the hypothetical questions you discuss. If you are asking an Asian person for their math homework because they sit next to you in math class and they always get it done on time it is not offensive (just a bit of cheating). But, if you ask an Asian person for their math homework because they are Asian, you are making a racist stereotype that all Asian people are good at math. If you are asking a black person if they play basketball because they are on a court playing a pickup game or because they are wearing a jersey and basketball shorts this is not inherently racist. However, if you are asking a black person if they play basketball because they are black you are making a racist stereotype. Now, the only time I would consider addressing a group of people with mixed gender identities as “guys” offensive is if you are purposefully misgendering someone who is transgender, gender fluid, or non-gender conforming. If you are addressing a group including such people as “guys” with the knowing intent of misgendering someone (especially if they have asked you not to address them as such) this is offensive. It all boils down to the intent behind what you are saying.
Now to move on to safe spaces. You claim that safe spaces that disclude straight white people are discriminating straight white people (a claim in which borders extremely close to claiming that reverse racism exists). Discrimination is different than disclusion. In this case the disclusion of straight white people is not used to show superiority over straight white people. It is instead used to create a safe space where people who have, in the past, been oppressed by straight white people to discuss their oppression in a safe setting where they can feel no fear that a persecutor may be listening or get aggressive.
Your next claims about the Simple Jack Halloween costume not being offensive are so incredibly insensitive, but I think that Lexi covered that well so I won’t go into that.
Finally, I would like to say that I agree with your initial claim that people get too offended. However, people get too offended about little things such as the flat earth theory, not blackface, triggers, mental disability costumes, etc. Those things are justifiably criticized. Now, I did not go over everything you claimed in your article. Many more things were offensive. But this is getting to be quite long and I think you get the gist.
**see included website for the external source used
Benjamin
I would like to applaud you for writing such a thorough and well thought-out response to my blog. I wrote the blog because I wanted to have an honest discussion about my opinions with anybody willing to respond. However, it seems like you do not want the same thing. You told me I have no place to talk about this topic because of my gender and race. Telling someone that their opinions don’t matter because of their background is terrible. There are no exceptions. I encouraged anybody that wanted to voice their opinion to do so, stating it would be a step in the right direction, but this is taking three steps backward. Why should I care about any controversial issues if my opinion isn’t valid? America is not going to get anywhere if we do not allow discussion. So please, can we just talk?
Regan
I think you misunderstood. The reason you cannot talk about such issues is not BECAUSE you are a white male, but because that is the only opinion you are hearing. I meant that you cannot tell someone to “get less offended” for racist or sexist acts, for you have not personally experienced racism or sexism and cannot fathom how that affects a person. Also I would like to point out that, like you, I am white (although unlike you I am female, but that’s irrelevant) and do address racism in my previous comment. However, there is a difference between how I addressed the racism and how you did. I have done research on POC views of issues such as blackface and recognized that it was offensive based off that research. You however, as far as I can tell by this article, have not done research on how Megyn Kelly’s claims on blackface affected the black community and their input on this situation, and instead focused on how it affected the white perpetrator, Kelly, in this situation. It is not that you cannot discuss things such as racism, but that to have such a discussion you really have to listen to POC voices. Otherwise you have no experience except your own privilege. And honestly, if you don’t hear any voices telling you how your privilege tears their rights down, why wouldn’t you be complicit with it?
Regan
Also I would like to point out that your response to me made me look like a perpetrator who sought out to stifle your voice in this situation. In reality that was not my intent, but you got offended by what I had said and instead made more muted claims to the idea that I was stifling your freedom of speech. You did not address any of the things I said in my response to you, so really, who’s not wanting to have a discussion about it? You said that I had a well written and thought out response and was hoping people would for you wanted to have a discussion, but then took a complete turn and made me look like an aggressor and you the victim, failing to have the actual discussion about it. If you are going to say things as audacious and blatantly offensive as this and not be prepared to hear the reprocussuons for what you are saying, maybe you are not prepared to have the discussion in the first place.
Benjamin
I would like to apologize for not clarifying myself well enough in my blog. I have no problem with people getting angry and offended IF what they desire is an honest, civil discussion between two people with a disagreement. I do not like, however, when people blow things out of proportion, bash others on social media, and immediately accuse each other of being racist, sexist, etc. (Although, this does not apply to those who go out of their way to anger or offend others) That is why I ended my blog the way I did, asking for a discussion, although I understand I wasn’t very clear. That being said, I responded to your comment with something that concerned me, and I am more than willing to continue to discuss. Thank you for clarifying what you meant in your comment, although I find it odd that you needed to remind me of my gender and race. I was pretty sure of that already. In my blog I mention Megyn Kelly and Shaun White. Two people who had no intention whatsoever of offending anyone in their mentioned examples. I defend Megyn Kelly not because I agree with the things she said, but because I don’t think she deserved the major backlash she received. It’s easy to mention “white woman” and “black face” in the same sentence and get angry. But she didn’t advocate for blackface, she was confused what was wrong about blackface. Now, their are obviously many things wrong with blackface, and I do not in any way think it is acceptable. But, imagine this. Instead of the country coming together to attack Megyn Kelly, what if they would have came together to explain the pain that blackface causes to the black community. In both scenarios Megyn Kelly learns her lesson, but in one, there is much more shouting, and much less listening. I ask you, what is so wrong with wanting that? The same thing goes for Shaun White. He dresses up for Halloween as a character from a movie that came out in 2008, and suddenly the olympic gold medalist is a villain. Really? I understand that he could have offended you, I totally get that. But can we not hate the man for an honest mistake he made on Halloween?
Regan
Also I would like to correct my typo. I said Lexi, I meant Lizzy
Lizzy
I have a few things I’d like to say.
First of all, I want to address how you defined trigger warnings. The definition you gave is a misrepresentation of a trigger warning. Triggers are serious, “triggered” isn’t a synonym for offended. In psychology, trigger is a word most often used by people with PTSD and other anxiety disorders. A trigger is something that reminds a person of a traumatic event, or something else disturbing. I’m certain you can see why trigger warnings would be useful, and why the definition you gave is a blatant misrepresentation (that could’ve been avoided if you had just googled “define trigger warning”).
But that’s not what I intend to focus on.
You said James Moore was fired for saying that accusers sometimes lie in sexual assault cases. He was fired because what he said was insensitive. In the same article you cited, students accused him of being a rape enabler. Many victims of sexual assault face difficulty trying to get the court to believe them in the first place, and by saying accusers sometimes lie, Moore also implied that victims could be the bad ones. Sexual assault is an awful crime, and Moore contributed to making it harder for the victims of it to be heard. And yes, accusers sometimes lie. But that’s true of accusers in all kinds of cases. He chose specifically to say accusers in sexual assault cases.
Next, you talked about Nick Lutz. He got expelled for tweeting pictures of the apology note, which he corrected in order to humiliate his ex-girlfriend. What he did was clearly aggressive, and by posting it on twitter he also intended to humiliate her. You then said, “How is someone supposed to know if what they do or say is going to get them in trouble?” Frankly, I find it shocking you followed up that story with this. It’s clear that what he was doing was aggressive and humiliating towards his ex-girlfriend, so it should be clear that saying something like that would get Lutz in trouble. Many schools have strict rules regarding cyber-bullying, and the tweet could definitely fit the definition of that. Schools should be allowed to expel bullies that would disrupt the learning of other students.
Then you talked about the New York Times article. The article is about a part of freshman orientation at Clark University when racism is discussed. Like the article says, the assumptions are based on racial stereotypes. It’s not about needing “the people getting offended to grow up and stop getting offended by everything,” it’s about making sure students feel safe within their school so they can get their education. Asking the kinds of questions you mentioned is just enforcing the stereotypes, stereotypes that hold people back regardless of whether they’re positive or negative because they place people in a box.
You scrutinized the U of M’s safe space where straight white people aren’t allowed, saying areas like these are made to shield students from the outside world. To quote the article, “The group, Tongues Untied, is designed as a networking tool for staff and students who want to participate in group discussions about how race, sexuality, and gender impact their life experiences.” It is a group for marginalized people to talk about their experiences as a marginalized person without having to face scrutiny. Straight white people aren’t discriminated against. They have no reason to be in the group in the first place. Safe spaces are important because they allow people to be who they are without needing to worry about discrimination. How exactly is letting people be themselves that a bad thing?
You mentioned a few celebrities who have been criticized for offensive Halloween costumes. An example you gave is blackface. Similarly to how saying the n-word is bad because of the word’s history, blackface has a problematic history (a history of dressing up as black people and making fun of them). It’s fine to dress up as a character of a different race, but race is not a costume. Race costumes usually enforce racist stereotypes or make poke fun at a culture. The same goes for disabilities. (Especially in the case of a Simple Jack costume. Simple Jack was a character that was used to make fun of disabled people and paint them in a bad light.)
Finally, you mentioned that hate speech does not lead to violence. It may not be direct, but it certainly can. Hate speech encourages discrimination against a certain group of people, fueling rage towards them. When feeling extreme emotions like rage, humans get the urge to relieve it to maintain an emotional balance, and what better way is there to relieve rage towards a group of people than to be violent towards them? Emotions lead to impulsivity, and while the answer to the question I just asked is obviously anything other than violence, impulsivity doesn’t allow rational thinking. Hate speech leads to violence the same way the sun causes rain: through a series of events. A series of events that happens again, and again, and again.
Abigail
I agree with your general idea, but the examples you have cited are honestly, difficult to defend. A white woman making a comment about blackface is definitely grounds for feeling offended, so is wearing racist costumes. Someone’s culture, is not your costume. And when you say “A soft generation that can’t take a joke,” that is an inaccurate statement. Our generation is not soft, but is now pointing people out on their comments and recognizing when such a comment or action is not okay. Take for example your Shaun White costume point. Shaun White is a man who has never had to deal with being mentally disabled, so making a costume out of a character in which their mental state is at the forefront of their character is not okay. Finally, you say that people being offended takes away our 1st amendment rights of free speech, when in reality, silencing those who become offended by a comment or action, is taking away that right as well.
Regan
I completely agree with your claims and would also like to point out that nobody is restricting another persons first amendment right of freedom of speech by being offended, they are just exercising theirs by choosing to speak up on things that that may feel persecuted. That is, after all, what our country was built on. Freedom of speech just means that you have the right to speak and not be arrested or in trouble with the law for that. It does not mean that you will not feel any societal pressure or repercussions for what you are saying.