What Does Not Kill Me…Hurts My Feelings?
Adult Anxiety And “No Harm” Schooling
During an episode of Shogun Lady Mariko briefly explained to John Blackthorne the concept of the “eightfold fence,” a coping mechanism that the Japanese use for dealing with pain or hardship. By retreating inward into a “walled-off area” inside the self a person may withstand anything. It is a form of stoicism not unlike the British “stiff upper lip.”
The morning after the episode I awoke to a story describing proposed changes to graduation ceremonies being weighed by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board which highlight a vastly different approach to hardship. If adopted, the proposals would replace graduation ceremonies with commencement ceremonies so that "students of all levels of achievement will be able to cross the stage with their peers." This “inclusive language” means students do not need to pass in order to participate.
Despite how many of us view this, anyone who uses the term “inclusive” would not see this as celebrating failure. In fact, the OCDSB states that the policy reflects it’s “commitments to inclusivity, social responsibility, and authentic community engagement.” While “inclusivity” is usually associated with gender, race, or sexuality, in this case, it is entirely about those failing to meet graduation requirements.
Similar efforts appear to be underway in the US with The National Center for Fair & Open Testing stating that “only nine states have graduation tests in place for the high school class of 2024, down from a high of 27 that had or planned such tests.” While standardized tests in the US have a mixed reputation, much of the argument put forth comes down to the dropout rate being higher when there aren’t “alternative pathways to graduation” for those who fail the tests. When put that way, the goal seems less about ensuring students learn and more about handing out pieces of paper and sparing anyone the “hurt” associated with failing.
Prioritization of “feelings” over “standards” does raise the question, what is the best approach for dealing with hardship? While I would relish the opportunity to live like a Japanese peasant, I do wonder if people in the past weren’t more resilient than they are today and if shielding students from “harm” is doing more harm than good.
As a child, I remember running out of the house on weekends and summer holidays and disappearing for the day. My kids did not have the same freedom and I doubt many today do. In fact, stories exist of people reporting parents for letting their kids play in a park or ride the bus alone. The map below provides some indication of how much the “wandering range” of children has shrunken over the years:
Is the world more dangerous today? Not if the crime and accident statistics are correct. Children have likely never been safer.
The fact is that society is getting safer so why this obsession with shielding children from almost any possible “harm?” Part of the problem is perception. While violent crime has fallen the majority believe the opposite is true.
However, while misperceptions of crime rates might help explain shrinking ranges of play, they do not explain the push to shield children from emotional harm. Here we must look for a different culprit.
Few of us live our lives free of fear. We worry about many things, our health, finances, and loved ones. Worry is a healthy response to dangerous situations. Worry enables us to imagine what could go wrong and to plan for or avoid it. Worry, however, should be temporary and if it isn’t it becomes something harmful, it becomes anxiety.
Anxiety can compromise one’s ability to function and is often focused on the unrealistic. In the extreme, it is a mental health issue, and it is anxiety, not worry, that is driving parental responses to the largely imagined dangers of “emotional trauma.” The following chart shows us that anxiety is driven by age, gender, and political affiliation and is highest among the young, women, and liberals.
“Harm reduction” policies require the support of two groups, parents and teachers, and an examination of demographics seems to show that overprotection is being driven by adult anxiety.
In the US 74.3% of all teachers are women and the average age is 42. While it is widely known that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal, data regarding public school teachers is more difficult to obtain. However, as 79% have a bachelor’s degree or higher and as college-educated voters are almost twice as likely to vote Democrat than they are Republican, it is safe to say that most teachers are liberal. The age, gender, and political leanings of teachers also align with the highest levels of anxiety shown above and would support the theory that the anxiety of teachers is a factor when it comes to “no harm” schooling.
At first glance, the demographics of parents mirror that of the public, about 50/50 male and female and 50/50 liberal and conservative so we would expect an average level of anxiety rather than an elevated one, but the issue is more complex. Conservatives tend to have more children, so the split isn’t exactly 50/50 but they also tend to have children at a younger age, so the politics and age factors likely cancel each other out. The gender dynamics of parenting is also not clear-cut. A Pew poll reveals that, with the exception of discipline, both sexes agree that mothers do the majority of the childcare tasks, including scheduling and school work.
What’s more, even when “in charge,” fathers tend to be less worried than mothers.
So, once again the data seems to support the theory that, just as in teaching, adult anxiety in parents is likely driving much of this “harm reduction” schooling.
Conclusion
Parents love their children. As children have become “economically worthless but emotionally priceless” it is little wonder that parents worry so much. But it can be easy to let worry become all consuming, for it to become anxiety. There is also evidence that overprotecting children harms rather than helps children and it is clear that the mental health of the young is getting worse.
Albert Einstein is reputed to have said that if he had an hour to save the world, he’d spend 55 minutes identifying the problem and 5 minutes solving it. While I am confident that I know what is causing the obsession with overprotecting kids, and that this overprotection is contributing to the youth mental health crisis, I am even more confident in saying that there is no easy solution. We cannot as a society wave a magic wand and fix the problem nor has telling someone not to worry ever been effective. That said, parents and teachers who support “no harm” schooling need to be made to understand that shielding children from failure does not prevent it but rather just “kicks it down the road” where it will be more consequential.
Vince Lombardi once said that “winners never quit and quitters never win,” but in society’s pursuit of “equity” and “no harm” schooling children are being taught that there’s no point in even trying.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
Try to see how little work you can do before you get kicked out - The Bernie Sanders school of living on a commune