 College is a place where people go to learn more in-depth about topics that interest them and also a place to broaden one's own mind and ideas.  It is a melting pot of people who have come from all over the country, even the world, and have a vast variety of backgrounds and experiences.  However, over time this one vast mindset of college is shrinking to become more and more closeminded, to where only certain ideas and phrases can be deemed "correct" or "appropriate" while the rest of the ideas are disregarded and labeled as "wrong" or bigoted". While terms like "microaggressions" and "trigger warnings" are becoming more and more used, people who disagree with certain ideals hide in the shadows for fear of public shaming and censorship, not by people of authority, but by their own peers.   

 First, let's talk about microaggressions.  The generally new term microaggression is becoming wildly used today and it refers to the unintentional or unknowing act of offending someone based on race, gender, sexuality, or gender identity.  This can be referenced to about anything a person could think of but there are some arguments I have found that do put forth a good point on why certain microaggressions are bad.  In the article, "What Color Am I?: Why White People Avoid Talking About Race and Why People of Color Keep Bringing It Up" the author talks mainly about racial microaggessions and focuses less on gender, transgender or homophobic microaggressions.  However, they can still be applied to her argument.  Her target audience was one-hundred percent the white community and her main goal of the essay was to critique the word "colorblind".  Being a white American, I believe she did accomplish her goal because she brought up some points I never really thought about.  She starts by saying that "colorblind" is a term commonly used to basically say, "Hey, I'm not racist".  This looks very good on the surface right?  If everyone could just throw away race and treat everyone the way they treat everyone else it would be very ideal.  However, the problem she brings up with being "colorblind" is, "Colorblindness is a well-intentioned approach, but it actually implies that there is something undesirable or shameful about different (non-white) cultures and ethnicities."  Obviously, this leads to the absolute opposite of what being "colorblind" tries to accomplish and instead leads some people to feel uncomfortable around people that are different rather than accepting who they are.  This leads to non-verbal microaggressions which the author claims may even be worse than verbal microaggressions.  An example of this might be people conversing in a room.  There is a diversity of people in the room but people tend to migrate towards other people of their race.  When someone of a different race joins the conversation people potentially begin to feel uncomfortable.  They may not make eye contact with the different person, maybe ask they petty small talk questions while right after they have a deep, long conversation with another person of their own race.  When these types of microaggessions happen they do exclude people.  Most of the time it is unconscious or unintentional but it does happen and it does make an impact on others and society.  However, the author does propose a very reasonable, and probably the only, solution.  Just talk to people who are different from you.  Period.  Have an open mind and embrace something new. Include the people who aren't including you.  If you are in a conversation or a social setting and someone is uncomfortable because you are different, or you are uncomfortable because you are around people who are different, kill their microaggressions by treating everyone like a normal human-being.  If you can show them you are comfortable around them, a lot of the time they will respond in the same way, and who knows, maybe small steps can go a long way. 

 However, not all microaggressions are reasonable.  There are many people today who have been able to find multiple different new ways to be offended.  Some people today claim that a microaggression can be as much as asking an Asian person what country they are originally from or holding open a door for a women.  They are microaggressions because asking about a person's heritage is apparently racist, and presenting the scenario where a woman is inferior or in need of help, such as opening a door for her, is sexist and demeaning to women. Microaggressions like these are brought to attention in the article entitled, "Sorry but it's Your Fault You're Offended All the Time".  By just looking at the title, you can see that the author was sarcastic and a little too harsh to make a convincing argument.  However, he does make some pretty good points. The author defines a microaggression in his own way as "what happens when someone says something inoffensive but the listener chooses to be offended by it anyway." Today there is this newly found social norm for the desire for other people's pity.  He brings up a great point that people really desire pity, even more than love and respect.  With naming about everything as a microaggression and playing the victim card all the time, you don't exactly earn the respect of everyone.  If your argument is, "You shouldn't say that because it offended me" people will not take that seriously because it isn't a strong argument.  Most people in the real world don't exactly care how you feel and won't tip-toe around you to make sure you aren't offended.  It's harsh but it is the truth.  It really is becoming a thing that everyone wants to live in their little bubble and just feel good. This idea is damaging and leads to more important and more damaging issues to society. 

 The very sad and overall scary part about microaggressions is the way some college awareness groups are trying to solve the problem.  At the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, the University of California Berkley, Washington State University, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and potentially many other schools have written up lists of words and phrases that are to be banned on campus.  Phrases like "I believe the most qualified person should get the job" and "everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough" are usually on the list and also words like "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" are often seen too.  Students and professors can actually face consequences for using some these banned words.  Many professors who disagree with this censorship give into enforcing it because they could potentially lose their job if they don't.  On the other hand, some professors enforce the speech on their students by threatening to fail them or lower their grades.  A Washington State faculty member, Selena Lester Breikss, warned students in her Women & Popular Culture course this semester that they risk failure if they use the term male or female. Another Washington State American Studies professor, Rebecca Fowler, warned her students that she would lower their grades for using the term "illegal alien".  This enforced speech and thoughts is breeding a one sided, narrow-minded new generation and it is becoming a huge problem.  Some professors today drill their own thoughts, morals and ideas into their student's heads and it is a problem mainly because it is all one sided.  "Inside Higher Ed" conducted a study on college professors back in 2011 and it showed that 12.4% of professors claim to support the far left, 50.3% are liberal, 25.4% are neutral, 11.5% are conservative, and only 0.4% support the far right. Sixty-three percent claim to be liberal or more and only twelve percent claim to be conservative.  I don't believe you can get much more one sided than that.  However all these examples of censorship of words and ideas has got me thinking of George Orwell's book "1984".  The banning of certain words in my mind is like the "newspeak" that was being created in the book.  It may not sound like a huge deal now, but I am thinking more towards the future.  With the banning of words, what is to stop anyone from using that system for their own political or economic gain in the future?  With the one sided politics of college, there will soon be an imbalance of democrats and republicans, and therefore only one sided ideas. If we let the banning of words and the labeling of certain ideas as wrong or bigoted, then what is stopping us from creating a "newspeak"? Or what is stopping us from having "thought police"?  The idea of having everyone be able to converse with one another and not offend anyone sounds good and I think no matter how right a person is they would like to live in a world where everyone gets along.  However that is not the case in this world.  The only way that everyone can get their own way is to have their free speech.  There is a reason that our founding fathers made freedom of speech the first amendment.  It is the main principle this country was founded on and that is why our country is so great.  The banning of words and the manipulation of the political system will only harm us all.  If you are for it now, think about how it could be if it was potentially turned right back around on you.  

 If you don't believe censorship or the teaching of only one side of ideas to students in college is much of an issue, you may be a little more swayed when you hear that this is starting to happen to babies as old as nine months.  Some scientists today are studying babies to see if they are more biased to their own race as opposed to other races.  The studies have shown that babies tend to feel more comfortable around adults and other babies of their same race, however their attempts to change them are scary.  By showing babies pictures of people of different races and assigning a name to the face, the testing showed that over time the babies started to decrease their racial bias towards their own race.  Now the concept of this is very productive.  We can bread a new generation that doesn't associate race with hate, I don't think many people think that that is a bad thing by any means.  However what this kind of thing could turn into is not a good thing.  It sounds to me a lot like brainwashing.  If this becomes a normal thing, what is stopping anyone from taking it further and to a new level?  Also what is to happen to the kids whose parents did not want them to have a scientifically trained, politically correct brain?  Would they be outcast, bullied or made fun of because they think differently than the other kids?  We will never know until we get to that point but people should be aware of the consequences this could possibly have.  Also, similar to the training that babies can get to conform to todays "right" thoughts, adults can as well.  A new type of therapy called "Feminist Therapy" tries to use therapy to get people to understand how marginalized groups can feel on a daily basis and how to better their own thoughts and ideas.  Similar to the study with babies this is just another way to try and get everyone to think and act in the "right" way.  It's starting to become somewhat scary how people will disregard others right to free thought and speech in order to have their views shared by everyone else.  

 When formal censorship of words doesn't work on people, many "politically correct" activists would rather public shame and bully people into accepting and believing in their ways instead of accepting that the other persons beliefs are their own and that they have a rational and logical opinion of their own.  By looking at the article, "The Right to Tell the Government to Go to Hell: Free Speech in an Age of Government Bullies, Corporate Censors and Compliant Citizens" we can see that bullying people into thinking similar to your beliefs is more degressive than it is progressive.  In the real world, people will say things that may offend you or your morals.  That is just a factor of life.  However, when that happens the best way to go about it is not to bully or shame them into agreeing with you that offending you is only way that they can go on in society.  Every single person has their own opinion and like your own, it is usually logical, thought out and overall hard to change.  Publicly shaming people does not change the opposition's opinion.  It may seem like it because doing such tends to silence them, but silencing another's opinion is just degressive to society.  In order to have a full and flourishing society we all need to hear others out and include their opinion in our thoughts.  Everyone is not going to agree with every opinion, but every opinion is at least worth noting, even the ones that seem just out right stupid.  Silencing another's opinion just limits the free speech of us all.  If it became a normal thing where someone gets offended and immediately that opinion cannot be heard because a group of people do not like it, then what does that do to our society?  Whether it is race, gender, or sexual identity every argument or opinion will have an opposition.  One thing that I feel like people don't really understand anymore is that just because they have the right to live a certain way, does not mean that society has to accept the way they live, especially if they are very open about it.  If you decide to be a transgender then you have every right to do that and live how you want to live.  However you should know that not everyone in society is going to support the way you live and there is nothing you can do to force them to support you.  Bullying people into thinking similar to the "social norm" can be turned into about any direction.  If you force people to think similar to your own views then they can turn around and do the exact same to you.  In history, we have seen that this method is tyrannical.  A good example is the KKK.  The KKK used violence to force people into supporting their racist acts.  I'm not saying that any acts today are nearly that bad but it is the same general concept.  Forcing people into your opinion limits the free speech of us all and discourages people to think critically and think for themselves.  

 Another issue that is hurting the critical thinking of today's youth is the need for trigger warnings and "safe spaces".  In the article, "Social media: toxified by rage" we can see an example of a person wanting to get away from foreign ideas and criticism on the internet. The article was related to trigger warnings but instead of being warned before potential disturbing content was shown, the author just didn't want to see any of that content in the first place.  It was solely directed at the internet and social media and how oppressive speech over the internet can affect people.  Basically the author is frustrated with all the hate and arguing over social media and that she want her internet to be a "safe space".  She makes claims how cyberbullying causes widespread depression and in more serious cases, suicide.  Her main point was that she would unfriend or unfollow anyone who didn't agree with her or was hostile on her social media.  Overall, I cannot find a stance at which I agree with this author.  It is bad to dismiss an opinion of another person just because you don't agree with it.  People get nowhere when everyone just agrees with everything, there is never just one right answer or solution and it takes multiple minds to find those solutions.  The way I look at this article, it's not that much of an issue if people want to get on social media or the internet and be in their "safe space" and not have to worry about getting upset.  The internet is entertainment and some people don't find confrontation or stress entertaining.  However when you look at the bigger picture, this is an issue.  If the internet can be easily censored to make everyone in a "safe space" and people get use to this idea too much, it can affect how people interact in the real world.  If you only want to hear what you want to hear on the internet, what is going to happen when you hear things you don't want to in the real world?  

 Though certain radical acts are happening in America to get everyone to think a certain way, it is usually spearheaded by people on the far left.  I don't believe all attempts to try to make America more politically correct are bad by any means.  Some groups today truly are marginalized and do feel oppression even in 2016 and there should be something done about it.  However, whatever is done cannot be forced.  Like I said before, freedom of speech is America's first amendment for a reason.  It is the one principle that can repel oppression single handedly.  When people have the right to construct their own thoughts and ideas society only goes forward.  There should not be just one set of ideas that can be determined "politically correct".  Hopefully soon people can realize this and stop the constant drilling of just one idea into the rest of societies head.  

