The installation gave examples of microaggressions such as “Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?” and “I’m colorblind! I don’t see race.” But a backlash arose among other Asian American students, who felt that the display itself was a microaggression. In April, at Brandeis University, the Asian American student association sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians through an installation on the steps of an academic hall.

Some recent campus actions border on the surreal. Portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might “trigger” a recurrence of past trauma. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. More than the last, it pre- sumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psycho- logical harm. The current movement is largely about emotional well-being. That movement sought to restrict speech (speciﬁcally hate speech aimed at marginalized groups), but it also challenged the liter- ary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. That’s partly right, al- though there are important diﬀerences between what’s hap- pening now and what happened in the 1 980s and ’90s. The list of offensive statements included: “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualiﬁed person should get the job.” The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. System schools were presented by administrators at faculty leader-trai ning sessions with examples of microaggr essions.

The coddling