The Silent Majority

I might ruffle some feathers with this one, but so be it.  

Before you venture into this blog post, I’d like to say a few words, and I will intervene in places in the post in red! If you’ve not read my book, I will not bore with any details or repeat what is in Chapter 28 titled the same as this post. I’m amazed at how foolish the so-called silent majority is today and has been for most of my adult life. They are a class of do-nothings who sit around and post comments on websites like the one that featured the below article. Remember the saying about what talks and what walks? Well, your posts mean nothing; no one of consequence reads your vents.   You are merely playing the “silent majority” game, which accomplishes squat. 

I remember reading a notation on the wall above a urinal many years ago that read: People who write these words of wit, wrap their sh** in tiny balls and people who read these words on walls, eat these tiny balls of sh**.”  Enjoy your meal folks, because that is, in essence, exactly what you are doing.

I am an Economist by education. In Econ 101, I learned the pricing of a product (micro-Economics). Money is everything, it is paramount to everything. Companies are in business to make money. If you truly want to influence something, follow the money then take decisive action. Who sponsors NFL games? Take notes on who they are and THAT’S where you vent your frustration. Instead of posting your vents on a blog, go to the sponsors website, tell them you have stopped  buying their product. Post it on FB, use the social media to ask for cooperation.

Some time ago while flipping through the channels, I noted my favorite financial company, one I have been with for over 43 years advertising on this left-wing news program. I wrote them a letter threatening to transfer all my assets from their company. I posted my letter on FB, then contacted the 100’s of like-minded, fellow military-types in my address book asking them to please speak out. They did and that company no longer advertises on that station. IT WORKED!

This article talks about the outrageous things happening within the NFL, and I’m not just talking about those millionaire pieces of garbage disrespecting the flag I served for nearly 36 years. The NFL is all about money, even if you are not a fan, which I no longer am, you are being taken to the cleaners by everything they have their hands in from stadium building to $9.00 beers.

We the people can change that, but the silent majority will never accomplish squat, nor will your posted comments on websites.

Today’s headlines tell me that Kansas City Chiefs’ player Marcus Peters sat out the National Anthem during last night’s NFL opener. I wouldn’t know, I wasn’t watching.

As consumers in America, we have a freedom to choose the products we purchase with the money we keep from our hard work after our government masters take their half. With that money, we buy the things we need and enjoy. It’s a simple concept; I don’t need or enjoy the NFL, so I do not participate in its offerings. I don’t go to games, I don’t watch them on television or the internet, and I don’t purchase NFL or player paraphernalia. I do this for a variety of reasons:

  1. It may be a small handful of players opposing their country’s anthem, but as long as it is accepted by the owners and coaches, (and the NFL) then they have lost me as a viewer. Yes, in the U.S.A. you have the freedom to express your views however ridiculous they may be. I, too, have a right to express my disapproval of your views through my pocketbook.The NFL is a business that sells a product. I happen to now find that product unattractive, overpriced, and out of style – so I refuse to buy it.
  2. The NFL has immersed itself in the hip-hop culture. Yes, I know this automatically makes me a racist according to the Left, but I simply don’t like the hip-hop culture and the things it represents that have nothing to do with skin color. I don’t approve of a culture whose music refers to women as “b**ches” and “h*s”, glorifies drug usage and violence, and encourages an illicit lifestyle. Plus, I don’t like the clothing. Pull up your pants, you look like an idiot. When this type of “music” blares out over the sound system in the stadium, as it did when I attended my last NFL game, I’m gone.
  3. It’s a game. As I age, certain things become more valuable to me. Time is a resource and I refuse to give it up to something I don’t enjoy. I do still attend some college games and cheer for my alma mater, so it’s not the game I don’t enjoy; rather, it’s the commercialization and the culture. At the last professional football game I attended, I looked around at the people spending $9.00 for a beer wearing their $90 team jersey, and decided I didn’t want to be one of them. I can still enjoy the game by watching my local high school team. I can even walk onto the field afterwards and make a young person feel good by congratulating them on a good game, great tackle, or exceptional run.
  4. The anthem. I served my country for six years, and the National Anthem brings a tear to my eye every time I hear it (when it’s done with class, not some hip-hopper adding his/her garbage to a beautiful song). Every. Time. It represents the collective sacrifice of my friends and colleagues and everyone who went before us. It’s the same flag that was draped over my former teammate’s coffin after being killed in Afghanistan. It’s personal to me, very personal. To sit it out, talk during it, raise your fist, or any other form of disrespect is unacceptable to me. Period. I’m simply not willing to look beyond that. There is no pass on this one. If you can’t stand still and respect the flag of this great nation and everything for which it stands, then you and everyone associated with you (advertisers) isn’t getting one dime from me. When Chiefs fans replace the last word of the anthem with the word “Chiefs” I don’t find it cute or excuse the behavior. It’s disrespectful to the millions of brave souls who gave the ultimate sacrifice so that these slobs could swill their $9 beers and scream at players on a Sunday afternoon. It’s inappropriate, disrespectful and I’m not going to participate.
    One aside on this topic: If I understand the argument, those who sit out the anthem think America is a racist country and the national anthem somehow represents the idea that all cops are racists. Huh? Seriously, your argument is just dumb and doesn’t even deserve a response. I would not disagree with those who would suggest that only a handful of players in the NFL hate America and therefore the rest shouldn’t be punished for that reason alone just like all cops are not racists. To that argument, reference items 1-3, 5, 6. Additionally, we are judged by the company we keep. You want to have an America hater on your team? Then I chose not to support you.
  5. We all have our likes and dislikes, and I simply dislike the culture that has become sports today. Geez, how much can we talk about and “analyze” a game? Admittedly, I pay attention to politics as much as a sports junkie watches games, but what politicians do affects my life. What’s going on in North Korea matters much more than whether or not Tom Brady completed 50% of his passes. If North Korea lobs over a nuke, you can kiss your sports goodbye, among other things.
  6. Taxpayer subsidized stadiums. A significant number of sports stadiums are subsidized or are built with taxpayer dollars. Does the taxpayer get to park for free? Do they receive free admission to the game? Are they allowed to use the locker room or weight room during the week? Do they get a free “I helped pay for this stadium” t-shirt? Of course not. Government should not participate in local business (Econ 102) other than by providing an environment where business thrives. While I commend the shrewd business owner who increases his wealth from government handouts, I do not approve of the practice and refuse to participate in something that encourages it.

So, Colin Kaepernick, Marcus Peters and every other flag protesting twit, this American is done with the likes of you. And, I’m not alone. Welcome to the unemployment line coming soon to your future.

How about a new look at the outlandish contracts offered to some of these scum. Make salaries performance-based. I’ve heard the story of last week, sorry I didn’t watch it.  Chicago down by  6, on the Falcons 5 yard line, 1st and goal and three receivers dropped or completely missed passes. Their millionaires for Pete’s sake, they deserve multi-million dollar contracts? Not if salaries were performance-based, much like everyone else’s.

Wake up Silent Majority and do something other than write your words of wit on the blogs, or to your elected criminal. I have and continue to do so.

The Vietnam War – PBS

If you are going to watch it, you should read this first. I will watch it, but for how long I don’t know. Mr. Garlock raises some issues I’m concerned about. We’ll just have to wait and see if Burns and Novick do the War justice, or just another snow job?

Be skeptical of Ken Burns’ documentary: The Vietnam War

by Terry Garlock

Some months ago I and a dozen other local veterans attended a screening at the Woodruff Arts Center in Atlanta – preview of a new documentary on The Vietnam War by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. The screening was a one hour summation of this 10-part documentary, 18 hours long.

The series will begin showing on PBS Sunday Sep 17, and with Burns’ renowned talent mixing photos, video clips and compelling mood music in documentary form, the series promises to be compelling to watch. That doesn’t mean it tells the truth.

For many years I have been presenting to high school classes a 90 minute session titled The Myths and Truths of the Vietnam War. One of my opening comments is, “The truth about Vietnam is bad enough without twisting it all out of shape with myths, half-truths and outright lies from the anti-war left.” The overall message to students is advising them to learn to think for themselves, be informed by reading one newspaper that leans left, one that leans right, and be skeptical of TV news.

Part of my presentation is showing them four iconic photos from Vietnam, aired publicly around the world countless times to portray America’s evil involvement in Vietnam. I tell the students “the rest of the story” excluded by the news media about each photo, then ask, “Wouldn’t you want the whole story before you decide for yourself what to think?”

One of those photos is the summary execution of a Viet Cong soldier in Saigon, capital city of South Vietnam, during the battles of the Tet Offensive in 1968. Our dishonorable enemy negotiated a cease-fire for that holiday then on that holiday attacked in about 100 places all over the country. Here’s what I tell students about the execution in the photo.

Enemy execution by South Vietnam’s Chief of National Police, 1968

“Before you decide what to think, here’s what the news media never told us. This enemy soldier had just been caught after he murdered a Saigon police officer, the officer’s wife, and the officer’s six children. The man pulling the trigger was Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnam’s Chief of National Police. His actions were supported by South Vietnamese law, and by the Geneva Convention since he was an un-uniformed illegal combatant. Now, you might still be disgusted by the summary execution, but wouldn’t you want all the facts before you decide what to think?”

The other one-sided stories about iconic photos I use are a nine year old girl named Kim Phuc, running down a road after her clothes were burned off by a napalm bomb, a lady kneeling by the body of a student at Kent State University, and a helicopter on top of a building with too many evacuees trying to climb aboard. Each one had only the half of the story told by news media during the war, the half that supported the anti-war narrative.

Our group of vets left the Ken Burns documentary screening . . . disappointed. As one example, all four of the photos I use were shown, with only the anti-war narrative. Will the whole truth be told in the full 18 hours? I have my doubts but we’ll see.

On the drive home with Mike King, Bob Grove and Terry Ernst, Ernst asked the other three of us who had been in Vietnam, “How does it make you feel seeing those photos and videos?” I answered, “I just wish for once they would get it right.”

Will the full documentary show John Kerry’s covert meeting in Paris with the leadership of the Viet Cong while he was still an officer in the US Naval Reserve and a leader in the anti-war movement? Will it show how Watergate crippled the Republicans and swept Democrats into Congress in 1974, and their rapid defunding of South Vietnamese promised support after Americans had been gone from Vietnam two years? Will it show Congress violating America’s pledge to defend South Vietnam if the North Vietnamese ever broke their pledge to never attack the south? Will it portray America’s shame in letting our ally fall, the tens of thousands executed for working with Americans, the hundreds of thousands who perished fleeing in overpacked, rickety boats, the million or so sent to brutal re-education camps? Will it show the North Vietnamese victors bringing an influx from the north to take over South Vietnam’s businesses, the best jobs, farms, all the good housing, or committing the culturally ruthless sin of bulldozing grave monuments of the South Vietnamese?

Will Burns show how the North Vietnamese took the city of Hue during the 1968 Tet Offensive, bringing lists of names of political leaders, business owners, doctors, nurses, teachers and other “enemies of the people,” and how they went from street to street, dragging people out of their homes, and that in the aftermath of the Battle of Hue, only when thousands of people were missing and the search began did they find the mass graves where they had been tied together and buried alive?

Will Burns show how America, after finally withdrawing from Vietnam and shamefully standing by while our ally was brutalized, did nothing while next door in Cambodia the Communists murdered two million of their own people as they tried to mimic Mao’s “worker paradise” in China?

Will Burns show how American troops conducted themselves with honor, skill and courage, never lost a major battle, and helped the South Vietnamese people in many ways like building roads and schools, digging wells, teaching improved farming methods and bringing medical care where it had never been seen before? Will he show that American war crimes, exaggerated by the left, were even more rare in Vietnam than in WWII? Will he show how a naïve young Jane Fonda betrayed her country with multiple radio broadcasts from North Vietnam, pleading with American troops to refuse their orders to fight, and calling American pilots and our President war criminals?

Color me doubtful about these and many other questions.

Being in a war doesn’t make anyone an expert on the geopolitical issues, it’s a bit like seeing history through a straw with your limited view. But my perspective has come from many years of reflection and absorbing a multitude of facts and opinions, because I was interested. My belief is that America’s involvement in Vietnam was a noble cause trying to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia, while it had spread its miserable oppression in Eastern Europe and was gaining traction in Central America, Africa and other places around the world. This noble cause was, indeed, screwed up to a fare-thee-well by the Pentagon and White House, which multiplied American casualties.

The tone of the screening was altogether different, that our part in the war was a sad mistake. It seemed like Burns and Novick took photos, video clips, artifacts and interviews from involved Americans, South Vietnamese, North Vietnamese, Viet Cong, civilians from south and north, reporters and others, threw it all in a blender to puree into a new form of moral equivalence. Good for spreading a thin layer of blame and innocence, not so good for finding the truth.

John M. Del Vecchio, author of The 13th Valley, a book considered by many Vietnam vets to be the literary touchstone of how they served and suffered in the jungles of Vietnam, has this to say about Burns’ documentary.  Pretending to honor those who served while subtly and falsely subverting the reasons and justifications for that service is a con man’s game . . . From a cinematic perspective it will be exceptional. Burns knows how to make great scenes. But through the lens of history it appears to reinforce a highly skewed narrative and to be an attempt to ossify false cultural memory. The lies and fallacies will be by omission, not by overt falsehoods.”

I expect to see American virtue minimized, American missteps emphasized, to fit the left-leaning narrative about the Vietnam War that, to this day, prevents our country from learning the real lessons from that war.

When we came home from Vietnam, we thought the country had lost its mind. Wearing the uniform was for fools too dimwitted to escape service. Burning draft cards, protesting the war in ways that insulted our own troops was cool, as was fleeing to Canada.

America’s current turmoil reminds me of those days, since so many of American traditional values are being turned upside down. Even saying words defending free speech on a university campus feels completely absurd, but here we are.

So Ken Burns’ new documentary on the Vietnam War promises to solidify him as the documentary king, breathes new life into the anti-war message, and fits perfectly into the current practice of revising history to make us feel good.

Perhaps you will prove me wrong. Watch carefully, but I would advise a heavy dose of skepticism. I concur!

—————————————–

Terry Garlock lives in Peachtree City, GA. He was a Cobra helicopter gunship pilot in the Vietnam War.

 

The Red Pill

Is there a trickle of light in this tunnel we have been sucked into? Dunno.

Liberals sick of the alt-left and are taking ‘the red pill’

Elizabeth Ames

The mainstream media failed to see the rise of Donald Trump in 2016. Now it’s overlooking another grassroots movement that may soon be of equal significance— the growing number of liberals “taking the red pill.”  People of all ages and ethnicities are posting YouTube videos describing “red pill moments”—personal awakenings that have caused them to reject leftist narratives imbibed since childhood from friends, teachers, and the news and entertainment media.

You might say that those who take the red pill have been “triggered.” But instead of seeking out “safe spaces,” they’re doing the opposite, posting monologues throwing off the shackles of political correctness.

Their videos can feature the kind of subversiveness that was once a hallmark of the left—before the movement lost its sense of humor.

Candace Owens, a charismatic young African American, posts commentaries on her YouTube channel whose titles seem expressly designed to make PC heads explode.

A sample: “I Don’t Care About Charlottesville, the KKK, or White Supremacy.” The commentary calls out liberal fear mongering over white supremacists. “I mean there are, what, 6,000 Klansmen left in our nation. You want me to actually process that as a legitimate fear every day when I wake up?”

Not insignificantly, her video got nearly 500,000 views and overwhelmingly enthusiastic comments. (“you rock, girl!” “this woman is awesome.”)

A later episode about Black Lives Matter got nearly 700,000 views and had the distinction of being briefly taken down by YouTube. Unapologetic, Owens responded with a follow-up commentary — “What YouTube and Facebook REALLY Think of Black People.”

She declared, “There was only one version of a black person that these platforms are willing to help propel towards fame and notoriety—and that is an angry black victim.”  Owens calls her channel “Red Pill Black.” It invites viewers: “Sick of the alt-left. Welcome, I prescribe red pills.”

The term “taking the red pill” derives from the movie “The Matrix,” the trippy sci-fi classic. Morpheus, the resistance leader played by Laurence Fishburne offers Neo, the movie’s hero played by Keanu Reeves, a choice: He can take the blue pill and remain in the repressive artificial world known as the Matrix where “you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.” Or he can take the red pill and tumble down the “rabbit hole” where he will come to realize that everything about his life was a lie.

The left’s intensifying war on free speech has produced a surge of red pill videos. Some take Owens’ in-your-face approach. Others are meandering, hipster confessionals delivered with the wordy earnestness of characters in a Duplass brothers movie.

In his YouTube Channel, Dissent Report, a young, one-time “Bernie Sanders supporting progressive Democrat” admits from behind large sunglasses that he’s made “a pretty hard turn to the right.”

He took the red pill after seeing friends “moving …towards an authoritarian sort of Progressivism.”  He explains, “They were just standing up for a divisive brand of politics that would tolerate no dissent whatsoever.”

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has largely dismissed the red pill phenomenon. Coverage has mainly stressed the connection to men’s rights activists —the Red Pill forum on Reddit and the documentary, “The Red Pill,” are both about men’s rights. This narrow focus, however, misses the larger story.

Those who have been “red pilled” may start out questioning feminism. But that’s often just the beginning.

A red pill blogger who calls himself “Pat Riarchy” (“also known as the patriarchy”) recalls that his journey down the rabbit hole began when a Facebook friend derisively called him a “cis male.” He came to recognize that, “it’s been one narrative pretty much.”  He concluded, “I have my own objective view…I didn’t want a bigger government. I realized I didn’t like the universal healthcare plan…I realized I didn’t really have an issue with guns.” Several books and discussions later, he emerged as a libertarian.

Red pill bloggers are increasingly characterizing PC culture as a first step on a slippery slope towards authoritarian socialism.

One who articulates this best is Dave Rubin, a married gay man and former left liberal whose show, The Rubin Report, has explored the red pill phenomenon.

In his commentary, “The left is no longer liberal”, he explained his own disillusionment with the “regressive left,” whose “backward ideology” of identity politics “puts the collective ahead of the individual. It loves all of its minority groups to behave as a monolith.

“So if you’re a true individual—meaning you don’t subscribe to the ideas that the groupthink has attributed to you based on those immutable characteristics—you must be cast out.”  Rubin calls this mindset “the biggest threat to freedom and Western civilization that exists today.”

One of his recent guests was Cassie Jaye, producer of the The Red Pill” documentary, which chronicled her personal journey away from feminism.

Jaye had intended to make a feminist film about the men’s rights movement. But her perspective began to change upon interviewing activists, who were anything but the angry women-bashers so often portrayed by the mainstream media. Instead they were men—and also women—concerned about issues such as unfair child custody laws, pregnancy fraud, and even domestic violence.  It turned out that men are also victims of domestic abuse perpetrated by women with surprising frequency.

Jaye’s film met with immediate resistance from radical feminists, who trolled her online while she was fundraising for the film. Her documentary has been largely ignored by most of the mainstream media. But it has had widespread impact on the Internet.

Laci Green, one of YouTube’s best known personalities whose left-leaning videos about sex and gender have an immense following, posted “Taking The Red Pill?”

Green’s relatively tame confession of discomfort with feminists who shut down opposing views, as well as the revelation that she was dating an anti-SJW YouTuber, enraged her fans. They waged an online campaign against her and reportedly “doxxed” her — published her personal information on the internet.

Many who proclaim themselves “red pilled” express a yearning for traditional values. “Pat Riarchy” wants to see a return to an era where comedians can “attack everyone,” not just Trump. “PC culture is going down,” he says. “A lot of people want this to stop.” Kirsten Lauryn, a 20-something hipster sitting amidst empty church pews, worries that,  “A lot of our society has drawn away from religion as an important way of instilling values.” She observes, “The pendulum is swinging back to a more traditional lifestyle. I see this with my generation Generation Z.”

The media has very likely ignored red pilling for the same reason it underestimated support for Donald Trump: An entrenched establishment always resists disrupters, especially those who reject its worldview.

That said, red pill bloggers are not necessarily Trump supporters—in many cases, quite the reverse. What they do share, however, is their questioning of mainstream media tropes.

Not all their videos would pass muster with Reagan conservatives or even libertarians. But, taken together, they give hope to those worried about the future of capitalism and free speech in America.

Elizabeth Ames is a communications executive and author. She has collaborated with Steve Forbes on several books including, most recently, Reviving America: How Repealing Obamacare, Replacing the Tax Code and Reforming The Fed will Restore Hope and Prosperity (McGraw-Hill).

A Perfect Storm

I’m speechless. What can be added to such disheartening piece, except to place the responsibility for the creation of  such a generation to where it belongs — to the parents of these maladjusted misfits who will someday be lead our nation. OMG!

The Smartphone Generation vs. Free Speech

Controversial speakers are being shut down on campus because today’s college students are obsessed with psychological safety and have little experience with negotiating conflicts

Jean M. Twenge

A student group set up a ‘safe space’ on the University of Missouri campus, Columbia, Mo., Nov. 8, 2015. PHOTO: JAIME KEDROWSKI/MISSOURIAN/ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

In the past few years, many U.S. college campuses have become embroiled in controversies over free speech. Students have insisted on “safe spaces” to protect themselves from ideas with which they disagree and have demanded the dismissal of faculty members who offend their sensibilities. Campus speakers have been “disinvited” when students object to their point of view. Such events were rare just five years ago but now seem to occur constantly during the school year. Why has this happened? What is so different about today’s students that many of them denounce faculty and administrators who suggest that a basic expectation of university life is for people with differing perspectives to talk to each other?

Meet iGen, the generation of young Americans born after 1995 and the first to spend their entire adolescence with smartphones in their hands. Puzzling as the recent campus controversies might seem, they are rooted in the unique psychology and life experiences of this cohort.

First, iGen’ers grew up in an era of smaller families and protective parenting. They rode in car seats until they were in middle school, bounced on soft-surface playgrounds and rarely walked home from school. For them, unsurprisingly, safety remains a priority, even into early adulthood.

As I found in analyzing several large national surveys of teens from all backgrounds, fewer of them in the 2010s (as compared with the 2000s) say that they like to take risks, and fewer say they get a thrill out of doing something dangerous. That has real benefits. Fewer get into car accidents or physical fights. In the annual Monitoring the Future survey of more than a half million 12th-graders, the number who binge-drank was cut in half between the late 1990s and 2016. In previous eras, teens were willing to live on the edge by doing things they knew weren’t safe—that was the nature of being a teen. Not anymore.

Teenagers using cellphones. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES

Nor are they just concerned about physical safety. The iGen teens I have interviewed also speak of their need for “emotional safety”—which, they say, can be more difficult to protect. “I believe nobody can guarantee emotional safety,” one 19-year-old told me. “You can always take precautions for someone hurting you physically, but you cannot really help but listen when someone is talking to you.” This is a distinctively iGen idea: that the world is an inherently dangerous place because every social interaction carries the risk of being hurt. You never know what someone is going to say, and there’s no way to protect yourself from it.

The result is a generation whose members are often afraid to talk to one another, especially about anything that might be upsetting or offensive. If everyone must be emotionally safe at all times, a free discussion of ideas is inherently dangerous. Opposing viewpoints can’t just be argued against; they have to be shut down, because merely hearing them can cause harm.

This frame of mind lies behind recent student agitation to keep controversial speakers off campus.

This frame of mind lies behind recent student agitation to keep controversial speakers off campus. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit watchdog group, campus disinvitations have risen steadily, reaching an all-time high of 42 in 2016, up from just six in 2000. In the American Freshman survey of more than 140,000 college students conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute in 2015, 43% agreed that campuses should be able to ban extreme speakers, up from just 20% in 1984.

The reasons for disinvitations frequently refer to the safety of students. When Williams College disinvited a speaker with provocative views on race, the campus newspaper wrote that his presence on campus would have caused students “emotional injury.” When controversial speakers do come, it is now fashionable to create a “safe space” where students can go if they feel upset.

Members of iGen are also taking longer to grow up. As I found in analyzing seven large national surveys of teens, today’s adolescents are less likely to drive, drink, work, date, go out and have sex than were teens just 10 years ago. Today’s 18-year-olds look like 15-year-olds used to. They don’t reach adulthood too early, but they also lack experience with independence and decision-making.

The result is a generation that looks to college administrators to settle disputes, like squabbling siblings appealing to their parents. Unaccustomed to independence, they want an authority figure to step in. At San Diego State University in 2016, students wanted the university president to apologize for fliers posted by an off-campus group. At Yale University in 2015, a faculty member suggested that students use their own judgment about potentially offensive Halloween costumes rather than let the administration dictate the rules. The students demanded that she resign.

Campus as a “home,” evoking the protected cocoon of childhood, is a theme in many of these incidents. During the controversy at Yale, a student yelled, “It is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students…It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! It is about creating a home here!”

Members of iGen have spent more time with screens and less time interacting with each other in person than any previous generation. Because they communicate primarily online, most of the threats they experience come through social media or texts, not in person. For iGen, danger tends to take the form of words, not physical altercations. At the extreme, this has led to the belief that words can be violence—the belief at the core of disinvitations, “trigger warnings” to alert students to potentially offensive material, and campus speech restrictions. In the American Freshman survey, iGen college students were more likely than Gen X students in the 1990s to agree that “colleges should prohibit racist or sexist speech.”

Finally, in a time of growing income inequality, iGen believes that you either make it or you don’t—so you’d better make it. Compared with previous generations, they are more likely to say that they are going to college to get a good job and less likely to say that they hope the experience will broaden their education and point of view.

To faculty and administrators who grew up in previous eras, college is a place for being challenged by new ideas. Members of iGen disagree: They see college as a place to prepare for a career in a safe environment. They don’t necessarily see a connection between participating in big social and political debates and getting a job that pays well.

All of these iGen factors have combined to create a perfect storm at U.S. colleges. It isn’t hard to see why these young people, looking for safety and practicality, now clash so regularly with their elders when controversial ideas arrive on campus.

—Dr. Twenge is a professor of psychology at San Diego State University and the author of “iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood” (Atria).

Appeared in the September 2, 2017, print edition as ‘The Smartphone Generation Vs. Free Speech.’

One Marine's Journey From Private to Colonel

%d bloggers like this: