I assigned Coddling to a university class, but I introduced it to my students by pointing that that it would be incorrect to read the book as an indictment of them. Instead, I said, it catalogued what we, their elders, had done and failed to do. They still didn't want to read it but, well, I insisted. And most ended up finding it a revelation. One heartbreaking example: they asked me--a late boomer--if it was really true that kids used to just run around freely without supervision. Yes, I said, that's true. I'm not at all surprised, but it's a shame that so many graduating seniors have so little compunction about judging a book and author based on nothing more than rumors and ideology.
My husband - small-town Texas - and me - South Side of Chicago - were of the "have fun and better be home by dark" generation in the 1940s and 1950s. Great memories. Sometimes supervised by an older sibling, meaning one year older. We ran in packs, looking after each other. Yes, heartbreaking.
To be clear, my husband corrected me - they did not have to be home by dark. His dad, who had been in the Coast Guard in WWII, would whistle my husband and his brother home. They grew up next to the confluence of two rivers and had this wonderful Tom Sawyer childhood. My husband would leave at breakfast with his dog, a boxer named Jute, and join up with his friends during the day.
I had to come home when the street lights went on. Our favorite playground was an empty lot with a demolished house; we would play among the broken windows and rusty rebar, building forts from scrap wood. Good times.
I had the same "come home when the street lights went on" instruction. I feel so sorry for my own kids who don't have the same freedom. I would give them that freedom but 1) no other kids are outside to play with, so my kids would rather stay indoors and text with their friends, and 2) I don't want to get arrested.
Here is good news. On our block here is Denver, we have about a half dozen young families. We neighbors all get together, young and old, for an alley party a couple of times a summer. I watch the little guys run around, fall down, scream, and play together. All of these moms (and dads) are committed to the children getting to have unstructured time to play, get dirty, fall down, etc. Perhaps the world is becoming a bit saner.
Great article, and I particularly loved this quote:
“For one thing, a university is not a mirror. It is not supposed to show students an image of themselves with better lighting. At its best, it exposes them to people who know things they do not know, who see things they do not see, or who may even be wrong in useful ways. That’s the purpose of a university education: to cause reflection, not be a reflection.”
When I was in college (Kansas University) circa 1963, the head of the American Nazi Party came to speak at the student union. There were protests but the event went as scheduled. It was discussed in a political science class. I learned from that experience. I also learned something when he was shot and killed by one of his staff months or years later.
I heard this recently and thought there is serious wisdom there. "I always think that I am right , but I think that I am not always right". Somehow humility needs to be rediscovered as a worthwhile virtue.
This reminds me of when Harry Potter was first published and quickly denounced as a book promoting, among other things, Satanism. The usually staid Reader's Digest did an article about the reactions to the book. The highlight for me was the interview with one of the leaders of a group criticizing the book. She admitted to not having read the book. The Reader's Digest interviewer let her admission stand without a response. Their silence was damning. Loved it.
Having once been an idealistic youngster (am a better educated and much more humble oldster idealist today) I know the lovely, drunk feeling of the "shoot, ready, aim" approach to activism, so sure one is right that homework is not needed. Particularly if I suspected the homework might challenge my beliefs.
Extremely well said, and thank you for this. Like the mirror quote, especially: "The university is not a mirror...it's supposed to CAUSE reflection, not be a reflection." I can't believe how out of whack woke DEI attitudes have become and how they have become group-think for many people, i.e. a whole idealogy with predicable knee-jerk reactions to anything without deeper thinking and nuance, with resentment toward anyone who questions anything in this ideology. This mindset subverts the whole purpose of a university which is to purposely look at multiple perspectives, think deeply and be greatly aware of nuance.
This hits something I've been wrestling with. The "you have agency, use it" framing isn't just good commencement advice, it's the actual fault line in a lot of these campus debates. The students protesting Haidt weren't disagreeing with him so much as confirming the diagnosis: a generation that's been taught disagreement is danger, then handed a microphone and told to defend themselves. Credit where it's due though, NYU didn't cave.
Lukianoff and Haidt already made the case in Coddling that students didn't seize this power. Rather, campus leaders handed it to them through the bureaucracy of safetyism. What I'd push on is what's happened since the book came out: bureaucracy has stopped being just an ideological artifact and become a budget line.
The administrative apparatus that institutionalized therapeutic culture is now a significant chunk of operating costs at most universities, justified to parents and trustees as the value-add of a $90k-a-year experience. So even when the original ideological case for it weakens—as it arguably has post-2020—the financial case for keeping it gets stronger. After all, you can't easily fire the people whose existence is the product you're selling.
Which leaves me wondering: does the prescription in Coddling still work when the bureaucracy of safetyism has graduated from "bad idea" to "revenue model"?
Brilliant. To paraphrase something I heard from David French, I believe, discussing the prevailing purpose of a heterodox university experience: "To prepare students for participation in an often contentious pluralistic society." NYU and others are falling short.
I’m not with the students who presented a weak argument. However, why is “coddling” in the title if the two authors thought it was a bad idea? You described your position as “ambivalent” to its usage, which basically told us nothing, I think more of an explanation here was warranted.
I agree that a class body doesn’t hold cohesive values, however, I think their point, poorly made as it was, is that commencement is THEIR DAY! Yes, challenge students in the classroom, but let’s hear from someone we can all (or most as humanly possible) be inspired by on our celebration day. That is a perfectly reasonable argument, college is pretty expensive, maybe they should get a say in the speaker who sends them off into the wild.
You finished with a bunch of: we were right about this, that, everything. I mean… c’mon.
Outside of these points, I agreed with most everything you said.
While I strongly agree with all this, I don’t think you’re sufficiently charitable on point 6. That’s where the real animosity is coming from, and I don’t think your out is as clean as you’re suggesting here.
Part of what’s caused the coddling is a Frankfurt school ideology that equates words with violence — so naturally, to criticize the coddling is to criticize that ideology. But that ideology is central to their manichean worldview, self-understanding, and broader culture war right now. You two are, rightly, skeptical of what this critical theoretic project does to people and institutions — and they’re also right to perceive this criticism as destabilizing. I’m sure most of them were getting egged on and coached by their sociology and anthropology profs — that’s usually how these things happen.
So you should more plainly state that there is a certain conception of DEI which is inextricably bound up with the logic of critical theory, and that we should reject that. But rejecting it doesn’t mean abandoning liberal egalitarian commitments to equity and inclusion differently-conceived.
Whether they buy that alternative is another story, but I think you should sharpen this point of disagreement rather than pretending it’s just a misunderstanding.
I freaking love this! Most attempts by media outlets to get clicks are based on conflict/fear. If the critism of something only iliicits your distrust of it, you are reading clickbait, which is feelings-based and rarely fact-based.
“For one thing, a university is not a mirror. It is not supposed to show students an image of themselves with better lighting. At its best, it exposes them to people who know things they do not know, who see things they do not see, or who may even be wrong in useful way”.
Perhaps the real reason students are upset about Jon being the speaker is because he’s encouraging them to do something they know they should do, but which is difficult. This causes feelings of guilt, and they react much like drug addicts react when someone suggests they should stop doing drugs.
Unfortunately a lot of young people (and some old people) are unable to differentiate between the sentiment “here’s something you could do differently that would improve your situation” and “your situation is all your fault!” Giving advice is seen as equivalent to blaming.
The uproar over Haidt’s commencement speech highlights the ongoing discussion about free speech and the role of universities. It’s crucial to engage with differing viewpoints, even if they challenge our beliefs, to foster a well-rounded education.
I assigned Coddling to a university class, but I introduced it to my students by pointing that that it would be incorrect to read the book as an indictment of them. Instead, I said, it catalogued what we, their elders, had done and failed to do. They still didn't want to read it but, well, I insisted. And most ended up finding it a revelation. One heartbreaking example: they asked me--a late boomer--if it was really true that kids used to just run around freely without supervision. Yes, I said, that's true. I'm not at all surprised, but it's a shame that so many graduating seniors have so little compunction about judging a book and author based on nothing more than rumors and ideology.
My husband - small-town Texas - and me - South Side of Chicago - were of the "have fun and better be home by dark" generation in the 1940s and 1950s. Great memories. Sometimes supervised by an older sibling, meaning one year older. We ran in packs, looking after each other. Yes, heartbreaking.
To be clear, my husband corrected me - they did not have to be home by dark. His dad, who had been in the Coast Guard in WWII, would whistle my husband and his brother home. They grew up next to the confluence of two rivers and had this wonderful Tom Sawyer childhood. My husband would leave at breakfast with his dog, a boxer named Jute, and join up with his friends during the day.
I had to come home when the street lights went on. Our favorite playground was an empty lot with a demolished house; we would play among the broken windows and rusty rebar, building forts from scrap wood. Good times.
I had the same "come home when the street lights went on" instruction. I feel so sorry for my own kids who don't have the same freedom. I would give them that freedom but 1) no other kids are outside to play with, so my kids would rather stay indoors and text with their friends, and 2) I don't want to get arrested.
Sad, but true.
Sad
Pat: that sounds like my childhood, and I wouldn't trade it for any number of play dates or supervised activities!
Here is good news. On our block here is Denver, we have about a half dozen young families. We neighbors all get together, young and old, for an alley party a couple of times a summer. I watch the little guys run around, fall down, scream, and play together. All of these moms (and dads) are committed to the children getting to have unstructured time to play, get dirty, fall down, etc. Perhaps the world is becoming a bit saner.
Ugh. That is so sad. Tks for sharing.
Great article, and I particularly loved this quote:
“For one thing, a university is not a mirror. It is not supposed to show students an image of themselves with better lighting. At its best, it exposes them to people who know things they do not know, who see things they do not see, or who may even be wrong in useful ways. That’s the purpose of a university education: to cause reflection, not be a reflection.”
I like that part too because in my head he added “this is a university not a hollister.”
When I was in college (Kansas University) circa 1963, the head of the American Nazi Party came to speak at the student union. There were protests but the event went as scheduled. It was discussed in a political science class. I learned from that experience. I also learned something when he was shot and killed by one of his staff months or years later.
That’s the KU and Dole-esque State of Kansas I know best!
I heard this recently and thought there is serious wisdom there. "I always think that I am right , but I think that I am not always right". Somehow humility needs to be rediscovered as a worthwhile virtue.
This reminds me of when Harry Potter was first published and quickly denounced as a book promoting, among other things, Satanism. The usually staid Reader's Digest did an article about the reactions to the book. The highlight for me was the interview with one of the leaders of a group criticizing the book. She admitted to not having read the book. The Reader's Digest interviewer let her admission stand without a response. Their silence was damning. Loved it.
Having once been an idealistic youngster (am a better educated and much more humble oldster idealist today) I know the lovely, drunk feeling of the "shoot, ready, aim" approach to activism, so sure one is right that homework is not needed. Particularly if I suspected the homework might challenge my beliefs.
Darn those annoying facts.
Extremely well said, and thank you for this. Like the mirror quote, especially: "The university is not a mirror...it's supposed to CAUSE reflection, not be a reflection." I can't believe how out of whack woke DEI attitudes have become and how they have become group-think for many people, i.e. a whole idealogy with predicable knee-jerk reactions to anything without deeper thinking and nuance, with resentment toward anyone who questions anything in this ideology. This mindset subverts the whole purpose of a university which is to purposely look at multiple perspectives, think deeply and be greatly aware of nuance.
This hits something I've been wrestling with. The "you have agency, use it" framing isn't just good commencement advice, it's the actual fault line in a lot of these campus debates. The students protesting Haidt weren't disagreeing with him so much as confirming the diagnosis: a generation that's been taught disagreement is danger, then handed a microphone and told to defend themselves. Credit where it's due though, NYU didn't cave.
Lukianoff and Haidt already made the case in Coddling that students didn't seize this power. Rather, campus leaders handed it to them through the bureaucracy of safetyism. What I'd push on is what's happened since the book came out: bureaucracy has stopped being just an ideological artifact and become a budget line.
The administrative apparatus that institutionalized therapeutic culture is now a significant chunk of operating costs at most universities, justified to parents and trustees as the value-add of a $90k-a-year experience. So even when the original ideological case for it weakens—as it arguably has post-2020—the financial case for keeping it gets stronger. After all, you can't easily fire the people whose existence is the product you're selling.
Which leaves me wondering: does the prescription in Coddling still work when the bureaucracy of safetyism has graduated from "bad idea" to "revenue model"?
this is a really good article tho
I have no idea who the commencement speaker was when I graduated in 1986, and I certainly didn't check to see if his or her values matched my own.
Brilliant. To paraphrase something I heard from David French, I believe, discussing the prevailing purpose of a heterodox university experience: "To prepare students for participation in an often contentious pluralistic society." NYU and others are falling short.
I’m not with the students who presented a weak argument. However, why is “coddling” in the title if the two authors thought it was a bad idea? You described your position as “ambivalent” to its usage, which basically told us nothing, I think more of an explanation here was warranted.
I agree that a class body doesn’t hold cohesive values, however, I think their point, poorly made as it was, is that commencement is THEIR DAY! Yes, challenge students in the classroom, but let’s hear from someone we can all (or most as humanly possible) be inspired by on our celebration day. That is a perfectly reasonable argument, college is pretty expensive, maybe they should get a say in the speaker who sends them off into the wild.
You finished with a bunch of: we were right about this, that, everything. I mean… c’mon.
Outside of these points, I agreed with most everything you said.
I’d give you a B+
While I strongly agree with all this, I don’t think you’re sufficiently charitable on point 6. That’s where the real animosity is coming from, and I don’t think your out is as clean as you’re suggesting here.
Part of what’s caused the coddling is a Frankfurt school ideology that equates words with violence — so naturally, to criticize the coddling is to criticize that ideology. But that ideology is central to their manichean worldview, self-understanding, and broader culture war right now. You two are, rightly, skeptical of what this critical theoretic project does to people and institutions — and they’re also right to perceive this criticism as destabilizing. I’m sure most of them were getting egged on and coached by their sociology and anthropology profs — that’s usually how these things happen.
So you should more plainly state that there is a certain conception of DEI which is inextricably bound up with the logic of critical theory, and that we should reject that. But rejecting it doesn’t mean abandoning liberal egalitarian commitments to equity and inclusion differently-conceived.
Whether they buy that alternative is another story, but I think you should sharpen this point of disagreement rather than pretending it’s just a misunderstanding.
I freaking love this! Most attempts by media outlets to get clicks are based on conflict/fear. If the critism of something only iliicits your distrust of it, you are reading clickbait, which is feelings-based and rarely fact-based.
“For one thing, a university is not a mirror. It is not supposed to show students an image of themselves with better lighting. At its best, it exposes them to people who know things they do not know, who see things they do not see, or who may even be wrong in useful way”.
Oh my. That’s a keeper.
Perhaps the real reason students are upset about Jon being the speaker is because he’s encouraging them to do something they know they should do, but which is difficult. This causes feelings of guilt, and they react much like drug addicts react when someone suggests they should stop doing drugs.
Unfortunately a lot of young people (and some old people) are unable to differentiate between the sentiment “here’s something you could do differently that would improve your situation” and “your situation is all your fault!” Giving advice is seen as equivalent to blaming.
The uproar over Haidt’s commencement speech highlights the ongoing discussion about free speech and the role of universities. It’s crucial to engage with differing viewpoints, even if they challenge our beliefs, to foster a well-rounded education.
Excellent articles like this are what keep me donating to FIRE, listening to your podcasts, and buying your books.