Paragraph 1:

In today’s academic community, it is becoming more and more common for professors and teachers to limit what kids can and cannot talk about. More and more people have been turning normal everyday events into huge controversial issues. In Roth’s article, “The Differences between Coddling and ‘Safe Spaces’,” he gives an example of a college campus that had to cancel an annual event called “hump day,” which was based off of the popular commercial, where students could pet a camel and do other activities. Students thought that the event was hurtful to people from the Middle East and that petting the camel, was animal considered abuse. It is becoming more and more common for people to turn things that were once normal, into bigger issues. 

Paragraph 1 revised:

In today’s academic community, it is becoming more and more common for professors and teachers to limit what kids can and cannot talk about by using trigger warnings. Their intentions might be to make the community safer, but not many people outside of the classroom are going to try to protect them from difficult topics. If the classroom is “too safe” then students are not going to learn to speak their mind, or handle the uncomfortable conversations. Students should be able to speak freely about whatever they chose in a classroom, with the understanding that no one will attack them for what they decide to talk about.

Paragraph 2:

“Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional reaction”(Lukianoff, Haidt). Trigger warnings can also be used to stop, or caution people from using microaggressions – “Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have to malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless”(Lukianoff, Haidt). Trigger warnings might be viewed as a good thing because it limits what people can say or it warns them about controversial topics. But by limiting what people are allowed to talk about are professors, or teachers who use them, really helping a students education? Essentially what people think is being limited, which enforces a fixed mindset.

Paragraph 2 revised:

Lukianoff and Haidt, the authors of The Coddling of the American Mind, wrote an article about trigger warnings and microaggressions and how they are affecting kids in their classrooms. “Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional reaction”(Lukianoff, Haidt). Trigger warnings can also be used to stop, or caution people from using microaggressions – “Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have to malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless”(Lukianoff, Haidt). Trigger warnings might be viewed as a good thing because it limits what people can say or it warns them about controversial topics. But by limiting what people are allowed to talk about, are professors, or teachers who use them, really helping a student’s education? In Roth’s article, “The Differences between Coddling and ‘Safe Spaces’,” he gives an example of a college campus that had to cancel an annual event called “hump day,” which was based off of the popular commercial, where students could pet a camel and do other activities. Students thought that the event was hurtful to people from the Middle East and that petting the camel, was animal considered abuse. Because everyone is being sheltered, normal everyday events are becoming huge controversial issues.