Naomi Firsht *

Jonathan Haidt on the crisis of resilience on campus.

Worrying things have been happening on US campuses of late. While most of us are now familiar with the campus censors’ vocabulary of ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘microaggressions’, authoritarian student behaviour has recently taken an even more sinister turn. At Middlebury College, Vermont, protesting students assaulted an academic who tried to protect speaker Charles Murray, because they considered Murray racist. In video clips Yale students were shown screaming at a professor who dared to suggest that Halloween costumes should not be policed for offensiveness. And at Evergreen College, Washington, when a professor refused to participate in a day of absence in which white students and staff were asked to leave campus for a day to raise awareness about race and equity, a student mob occupied the college president’s office and the campus ended up on lockdown.

Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University Stern School of Business, has been studying this new wave of campus culture for years, and has written several essays on the rise in demand from university students for the protection of their emotional wellbeing from words or ideas they dislike. He talked to me about the crisis of fragility on US campuses.

‘I’m very concerned about a phenomenon called “concept creep” – which has been happening to a lot of psychological terms since the 1990s’, he says. ‘When a word like “violence” is allowed to creep so that it includes a lot of things that are not violence, then this causes a cascade of bad effects. It’s bad for the students themselves because they now perceive an idea that they dislike, or a speaker that they dislike, as having committed a much graver offence against themselves – which means that they will perceive more victimisation of themselves. And it’s also really bad for society because, as we are seeing in a spectacular way in the United States this year, when each side can point to rampant occurrences of what they see as violence by the other side, this then justifies acts of actual physical violence on their side. And there’s no obvious end to this mutual escalation process.’

He adds: ‘Everybody involved in education needs to be dampening down violence and the acceptance of violence. Telling students that words are violence is counterproductive to that effort.’

‘When a word like “violence” is allowed to creep so that it includes a lot of things that are not violence then this causes a cascade of bad effects’

While incidents of protests getting out of hand and the censorious policies of student bodies get a lot of press, Haidt points out that these problems do not involve the vast majority of students. ‘The political problems are mostly confined to elite schools where people live together for four years. The problems don’t seem to be arising very much at community colleges or places where people leave the college community to go to work or to go home to their families. So the problems are localised, especially in intense communities that co-create a particular moral order’, he says.

‘I don’t know if most college students, even at those elite schools, are more fragile. What we do know is that rates of depression and anxiety [have been] sky-rocketing since around 2011.’


Haidt says these issues are not related to the millennial generation, but to those born after 1995, who grew up with social media as the norm. He calls them the i-gen (the internet generation). This tendency towards vulnerability has a number of causes, he says, but there are three main ones: social media, rising national polarisation, and the decline in unsupervised (adult-free) time during childhood.

‘The widespread introduction of social media on a potentially hourly basis occurs after around 2009 or 2010. The iPhone is introduced in 2007, Facebook opens itself to teenagers in 2006. So it takes a couple of years before most teenagers are on social media, but by 2008, 2009, a lot are… The problem seems mostly to involve social-media sites, where a teenager puts out something and then waits to sees what dozens or hundreds of people say about it. That seems to be the most damaging thing – it leads to more anxiety and insecurity.’

On polarisation, Haidt says that cross-partisan hatred has been increasing in the US since the early 1980s, ‘but it’s much more intense now… There is a much fiercer battle going on, and there is more motive to charge the other side with crimes and to claim victimhood for your side. I think this is part of the “speech is violence” movement. It is part of a rhetorical move to convict the other side of more serious crimes.’

The third major cause has been the ‘general decline in unsupervised time and the rise of adult protection’, says Haidt. In the US in the 1980s, there were two high-profile abductions and murders of two young boys, and parents panicked, he says. ‘Now there never was much of a risk of abduction from strangers… But America freaked out and overreacted and stopped letting kids out of their sight.’ By the 1990s there were pictures of missing children everywhere – ‘as if it was an epidemic, but it never was an epidemic’, he adds. At the same time, there was more of an emphasis on anti-bullying, as well as a decline in unsupervised play. ‘Studies of how kids spend their time show that up until the early 1980s kids spent a lot of time outside playing without adult supervision, but by the early 2000s that has almost disappeared, especially for younger kids’, he says.

Ironically, this over-protection of children may have done more harm than good. ‘The key psychological idea in understanding the rise in fragility is the idea of anti-fragility’, says Haidt. ‘It’s a word coined by Nassim Taleb and it describes systems that are the opposite of fragile. If something is fragile then you need to protect it, because if it breaks then it’s broken and it won’t get better. But there are some things that if you protect them, they won’t get better; the immune system is the classic example. If you protect your kids from germs and bacteria then the immune system can’t develop and your kids will be immunologically fragile… So protection can sometimes be harmful if there is an anti-fragile system at work.’ He continues:

‘Kids need conflict, insult, exclusion – they need to experience these things thousands of times when they’re young in order to develop into psychologically mature adults. Every adult has to learn to handle these things and not get upset, especially by minor instances. But in the name of protecting our children we have deprived them of the unsupervised time they need to learn how to navigate conflict among themselves. That is one of the main reasons why kids and even college students today find words, ideas and social situations more intolerable than those same words, ideas and situations would have been for previous generations of students.’

‘Kids need conflict, insult, exclusion – they need to experience these things thousands of times when they’re young in order to develop into psychologically mature adult’

The heightened vulnerability of college students has had a chilling effect on discussion in the academic world, and Haidt sees this in his day-to-day experience on campus. ‘There is a rapidly spreading feeling that we are all walking on eggshells, both students and faculty. That we are now accountable, not for what we say, but for how anyone who hears it might take it. And if you have to speak, thinking about the worst reading that anyone could put on your words, that means you cannot be provocative, you cannot take risks, that means you will play it safe when you speak… This is what I’m seeing in my classes when topics related to race or gender come up – which we used to be able to talk about 10 years ago, but now it’s painful and there’s a lot of silence.’

This is disastrous for academic life, as Haidt points out: ‘A university cannot function if people will not put their ideas forth, will not contest ideas that they think are wrong, will not stand up for ideas that they think are right.’

He is keen to emphasise that this is not a right-left issue. ‘Several people on the left are noticing that college students are less effective politically as activists, as progressives, when they have this morality and this ethos with such heavy concept creep.’

Haidt believes there is a mental-health crisis on campus: ‘I have never seen such rapid increase in indicators of anxiety and depression as we have seen in the past few years’, he says. But his suggested approach is unlikely to find favour with student communities fond of Safe Spaces and therapeutic puppy-petting. ‘If you think about it as a mental-health crisis’, he explains, ‘then you might be tempted to say: we need more help, more counselling, more protection for those who are suffering from mental illness. But if you look at it that way you will miss the broader pattern, which is that for 20 to 30 years now, Americans have been systematically undermining the development of resilience or toughness of their children.’ Referencing the work of Lenore Skenazy, author of Free-range Kids, he concludes: ‘We have made our children too safe to succeed.’

‘A university cannot function if people will not put their ideas forth, will not contest ideas that they think are wrong, will not stand up for ideas that they think are right’

In his forthcoming book Misguided Minds: How Three Bad Ideas Are Leading Young People, Universities, and Democracies Toward Failure, Haidt claims that certain ideas are impairing students’ chances of success. Those ideas being: your feelings are always right; what doesn’t kill you makes you weaker; and the world is divided into good people and bad people. ‘If we can teach those three ideas to college students’, he says, ‘we cannot guarantee they will fail, but we will minimise their odds at success’.

So how can we resolve the problem of vulnerability among young Americans? Haidt says part of the solution must begin in childhood and will require parents to give their children daily periods of ‘unsupervised time’. ‘We have to accept the fact that in that unsupervised time there will be name-calling, conflict and exclusion. And while it’s painful for parents to accept this, in the long-run it will give them children that are not suffering from such high rates of anxiety and depression.’

As for university students, Haidt references a recent quote from CNN commentator Van Jones. Jones said: ‘I don’t want you to be safe, ideologically.’ Building on this, he says universities should help students develop their ‘anti-fragility’.

‘We need to focus on preparing students to encounter intellectual and ideological diversity. We need to prepare them for civil disagreements. We need to be very mindful of mental illness, but otherwise need to minimise the role of adult supervision in their lives. College is a major opportunity, once they have left home, for them to develop anti-fragility and we must not deprive them of that learning opportunity.’

Jonathan Haidt is professor of ethical leadership at New York University and author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. His forthcoming book, Misguided Minds: How Three Bad Ideas Are Leading Young People, Universities, and Democracies Toward Failure, will be published by Penguin Press in July 2018.

Naomi Firsht is staff writer at spiked.



Annex, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Generation Snowflake

Wikipedia, the free enciclopedia


The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (November 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Generation Snowflake, or Snowflake Generation, is a neologistic term used to characterize the young adults of the 2010s as being more prone to taking offence and less resilient than previous generations, or as being too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own. The term is considered derogatory.[1][2] It is one of several informal examples of usage of the word “snowflake” to refer to people.


The term “snowflake” has been used to refer to children raised by their parents in ways that give them an inflated sense of their own uniqueness.[3][4][5] This usage of “snowflake” has been reported to originate from Chuck Palahniuk‘s 1996 novel Fight Club, and its 1999 film adaptation. Both the novel and the film include the line “You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.”[4][3][6] In January 2017, Palahniuk claimed credit for coining this usage of “snowflake”, adding “Every generation gets offended by different things but my friends who teach in high school tell me that their students are very easily offended”. Palahniuk referred to the young adults of the 2010s as exhibiting “a kind of new Victorianism.”[7] According to Merriam-Webster, Palahniuk was not the first person to use the metaphor saying, “It’s the stuff of self-help books and inspirational posters and elementary school assurances. The imagery before negation is lovely; we are each unique snowflakes, each worth treasuring because each is uniquely beautiful”, furthering “Palahniuk’s denial of the individual’s snowflake status struck a chord.”[8]

The term “Generation Snowflake”, or its variant “Snowflake Generation”, probably originated in the United States[5] and came into wider use in the United Kingdom in 2016[3] following the publication of Claire Fox‘s book I Find That Offensive!. In it she wrote about a confrontation between Yale University students and faculty Head of College, Nicholas Christakis.[9][10] The confrontation arose after Christakis’ wife, Erika Christakis, a lecturer at the university, had suggested students should “relax a bit rather than labeling fancy dress Halloween costumes as culturally insensitive”, according to Fox.[9] Fox described the video showing the students’ reaction as a “screaming, almost hysterical mob of students”.[9] Fox said the backlash to the viral video led to the disparaging moniker “generation snowflake” for the students.[9]

If the term “snowflake generation” was previously considered no more than slang, it was recognised as one of Collins Dictionary‘s 2016 words of the year.[11] Collinsdefines the term as “the young adults of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations”.[11] Similarly, in 2016 the Financial Times included “snowflake” in their annual Year in a Word list, defining it as “A derogatory term for someone deemed too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own, particularly in universities and other forums once known for robust debate” and noting that the insult had been aimed at an entire generation.[2]


“Generation Snowflake” and “snowflake” have been used in relation to purported generational differences; “snowflake” and similar terms have also been used more broadly.[3]

Generational differences[edit]

According to Fox, members of Generation Snowflake “are genuinely distressed by ideas that run contrary to their worldview”; they are more likely than previous generations of students to report that they have mental health problems.[10] Fox and journalist Bryony Gordon described these traits as being coupled with a strong sense of entitlement.[10][12] According to an article titled “The ‘Snowflake’ Generation: Real or Imagined?” from the John William Pope Center reasons proposed by researchers for the reported increase in mental health problems among university students differ.[13] They vary from increased pressure on students, reduced self-reliance resulting from overuse of mental health services, to university authorities’ expectations of student fragility.[13]

Fox argues that Generation Snowflake was created by over-protecting people when they were children and she argued the emphasis on self-esteem in childhood resulted in adults “tiptoeing around children’s sensitivities” to avoid “damaging their wellbeing”.[10] In the UK, Tom Bennett was recruited by the government to address behaviour in schools.[14] He commented that Generation Snowflake children at school can be over-protected, leading to problems when they progress to university and are confronted with “the harsher realities of life”.[14] Bennett argues being sheltered from conflict as children can lead to university students who react with intolerance towards people and things that they believe may offend someone or toward people who have differing political opinions, leading to a phenomenon called “no-platforming”, where speakers on controversial topics such as abortion or atheism are prohibited from speaking on a university campus.[14]

In 2016 some law lecturers at the University of Oxford began using trigger warnings to alert students to potentially distressing subject matter. This drew criticism from Fox and GQ writer Eleanor Halls, who related the phenomenon to Generation Snowflake, and questioned how well law students educated with trigger warnings would function as lawyers.[15][16] The university had not adopted a formal policy on trigger warnings, leaving their use to the discretion of individual lecturers.[17]

The negative connotations of the term Generation Snowflake have been criticized for having been applied too widely: Bennett also commented: “It’s true that, for some of these children, losing fast wi-fi is a crisis and being offended on the internet is a disaster…. But then I remember the other ones, and I reckon they all balance each other out.”[18] Richard Brooks wrote in The Daily Telegraph that “students have always been instrumental in turning the tide of public opinion”,[19] and Mark Kingwell, philosophy professor at University of Toronto has objected to the use of the term to characterize political protesting as “whining”, in response to protests by Millennialsfollowing Donald Trump’s election as president of the United States.[20]

Historian Neil Howe, who has authored multiple books on generations, describes the term “Generation Snowflake” as part of a wider societal pattern of criticizing Millennials. Howe says this includes the 2013 article from Time titled Millennials: The Me Me Me Generation and The Millennials skit from Saturday Night Live which aired in 2015.[21][22][23] In a three part series written for Forbes titled Generation Snowflake: Really?, Howe, who is known for Strauss-Howe generational theory, disagrees with the negative characterizations of the term “generation snowflake”, but he says it is based on “kernels of truth”. Howe says “snowflake conjures up specialness and risk aversion” and he asserts “Millennials manifest a good deal of both.” Howe attributes this to being raised during a time of moral panic over children, when protecting children was an increased societal priority. He says this cohort grew up with a “family fan club protecting and supporting them” resulting in high self-esteem. Howe says the term generation snowflake implies having high self-esteem is a negative quality, while he argues it is a positive quality associated with a reduction in youth violence and reduced young adult violent crime rate, as well as the reduction in CDC monitored youth risk behaviors such as not wearing a bicycle helmet, not wearing a seatbelt, having sex, drinking alcohol, and smoking cigarettes. Howe says risk aversion extends to older Millennials as well, citing a reduction in gambling, reduction in investing in the stock market, and reduced attendance at bars/nightclubs. Instead of being a negative as portrayed by term “generation snowflake” Howe argues “one of the many benefits of having a high self-esteem is more prudent behavior.”[21]

Howe notes that “generation snowflake” is also used to criticize young adults for living with their parents at higher rates than older generations. Howe attributes this partially to the Great Recession, but says “that’s clearly not the whole story, because the share of Millennials living with their parents is still rising eight years later.” He attributes this to young adults being closer to their parents than previous generations saying “Millennials are emotionally much closer to their Boomer parents than those Boomers ever were to their own parents.”[24] Regarding the criticism associated with the term “generation snowflake” Howe says “Every generation is shaped differently by history. Every rising generation brings with it new and different priorities. And every older generation feels threatened when they sense these new priorities could push their world in an unfamiliar direction.”[25]

Broader usage[edit]

In her syndicated column, Michelle Malkin criticized the provision of the Affordable Care Act which requires employer-based health coverage to extend to adult children up to 26 years of age, describing it as the “slacker mandate” and calling these young adults “precious snowflakes”. Malkin argues the provision has “cultural consequences” in that it “reduces the incentives for 20-somethings to grow up and seek independent lives and livelihoods”.[26]

Jessica Roy, writing for the Los Angeles Times, says the alt-right in the United States describes those protesting against Donald Trump as “snowflakes”, using the term as a pejorative.[27]



  1. Jump up^ “snowflake generation”Collins English Dictionary. Retrieved 18 November2016.
  2. Jump up to:a b Green, Miranda (21 December 2016). “Year in a Word: Snowflake”Financial Times. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  3. Jump up to:a b c d Nicholson, Rebecca (28 November 2016). “‘Poor little snowflake’: the defining insult of 2016”. London: The Guardian. Retrieved 29 November 2016.
  4. Jump up to:a b North, Anna (25 July 2014). “Are Trophies Really So Bad?”The New York Times. Retrieved 17 November 2016.
  5. Jump up to:a b Rumbelow, Helen (9 November 2016). “Generation snowflake: Why millenials are mocked for being too delicate”The Australian. Surry Hills. Retrieved 15 November 2016. (Subscription required (help)).
  6. Jump up^ Yagoda, Ben (4 December 2016). “Who You Calling ‘Snowflake’?”. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 25 December 2016.
  7. Jump up^ “Londoner’s Diary: Fight Club’s Chuck Palahniuk: “I coined ‘snowflake’ and I stand by it””. The Evening Standard. 2017-01-24.
  8. Jump up^ “No, ‘Snowflake’ as a Slang Term Did Not Begin with ‘Fight Club'”. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 1 July 2017.
  9. Jump up to:a b c d Fox, Claire (2016). ‘I Find That Offensive!’. London: Biteback Publishing. ISBN 978-1-849-54981-3.
  10. Jump up to:a b c d Fox, Claire (4 June 2016). “Generation Snowflake: how we train our kids to be censorious cry-babies”The Spectator. London. Retrieved 18 November 2016.
  11. Jump up to:a b “Top 10 Collins Words of the Year 2016”. Collins English Dictionary. 3 November 2016. Retrieved 18 November 2016.
  12. Jump up^ Gordon, Bryony (8 April 2016). “I feel sorry for the poor ickle millennials”The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 9 July 2016.
  13. Jump up to:a b Keaveney, Stephanie (19 December 2016). “The ‘Snowflake’ Generation: Real or Imagined?”. The John William Pope Center. Retrieved 29 December 2016.
  14. Jump up to:a b c Espinoza, Javier (19 February 2016). “Expose children to extremist views early on to prepare them for university, says expert”. The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 18 November 2016.
  15. Jump up^ Halls, Eleanor (12 May 2016). “Millennials. Stop being offended by, like, literally everything”GQ. Retrieved 9 July 2016.
  16. Jump up^ Fox, Claire (11 May 2016). “The fear of giving offence is killing democracy and stifles truth”. London: Evening Standard. Retrieved 18 December 2016.
  17. Jump up^ Ali, Aftab (10 May 2016). “Oxford University law students being issued with ‘trigger warnings’ before lectures”. The Independent. London. Retrieved 8 December2016.
  18. Jump up^ Bennett, Tom (20 November 2015). “For every flaky child we have one with real guts”TES. Retrieved 18 November 2016. (Subscription required (help)).
  19. Jump up^ Brooks, Richard (14 November 2016). “In defence of generation snowflake- everyone’s favourite punching bag”. The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 19 November 2016.
  20. Jump up^ Kingwell, Mark (17 November 2016). “Generation Snowflake? Not the millennials I know”The Globe and Mail. Toronto. Retrieved 19 November 2016.
  21. Jump up to:a b Howe, Neil (27 April 2017). “Generation Snowflake: Really? (Part 1 Of 3)”. Forbes. Retrieved 2 July 2017.
  22. Jump up^ Stein, Joel (20 May 2013). “Millennials: The Me Me Me Generation”. Time. Retrieved 2 July 2017.
  23. Jump up^ “Millennials” (SNL Session 41). 2015. Retrieved 2 July 2017.
  24. Jump up^ Howe, Neil (1 May 2017). “Generation Snowflake: Really? (Part 2 Of 3)”. Forbes. Retrieved 2 July 2017.
  25. Jump up^ Howe, Neil (3 May 2017). “Generation Snowflake: Really? (Part 3 Of 3)”. Forbes. Retrieved 2 July 2017.
  26. Jump up^ Malkin, Michelle (16 November 2016). “The Slacker Mandate and the Safety Pin Generation”. Townhall. Retrieved 15 December 2016.
  27. Jump up^ Roy, Jessica (16 November 2016). “‘Cuck,’ ‘snowflake,’ ‘masculinist’: A guide to the language of the ‘alt-right'”Los Angeles Times.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags are not allowed.