Katherine Sparks

Mrs. Thomas

UWRT 1104-037

28 April, 2017

The Snowflake Generation

The 2016 Presidential election can be looked upon in two ways: an upset or a triumph.

Everything the republicans have done since Trump has taken office, liberals retaliate by

marching, protesting, and making their peers aware of the reason they are taking action. In doing

so, the division of political unrest continues to grow at an alarming rate. With political insults

and outbursts being thrown around like confetti, its easy to see why the divide is growing,

whether one supports Trump or not. The term snowflake is being tossed around from Fox

News to Tomi Lahren on The Blaze, a channel about politics on the internet, and is contributing

to this every growing chasm between republicans and democrats that younger generations must

deal with today. A snowflake can be described as someone who is too sensitive, privileged,

self-centered, and opposes a certain agenda proposed by the opposite group, as in republicans

and democrats. More recently, the older generation, who are traditional republicans, have been

calling the younger generation, who are more liberal and critical, this new political insult. To

me, it seems a bit silly to be calling others names because they feel a certain way about certain

policies and agendas, but this is what it has come to now that certain people are in power.

However, to understand the reasons behind the insults, we must tackle the causes to figure out a

solution to what could possible be a problem for future generations who must face the privilege,

or burden, of voting.
 As a current student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, I am considered to

be more liberal. College students are exposed to more relevant information, ideas, and thoughts

brought on by their peers and professors and adopt them in their own way. In chapter 10 of the

novel The Fault Line, the author, Billy Hallowell, believes that the lack of conservative ideals

amongst professors is an area of concern. He emphasizes that campuses are more concerned

with buzzwords, or trigger-warnings, than the right to free speech. Students believe that

campuses should get rid of racist or sexist speech, which makes sense. Hate cant spread if its

not expressed to others, but isnt it wrong to stifle others opinions if they arent the same as our

own? Are we, as a generation, becoming a victim of political correctness, afraid of even the

slightest inconvenience, and afraid of being offended? There must be a reason as to why the

word snowflake is now being considered an insult.

Reactions surrounding the 2016 election is the birthplace of snowflake. Tomi Lahren,

a former commentator for The Blaze, dedicated one of her entire segments to explaining reasons

one might consider themselves snowflakes. In the segment, named What does it mean to be a

snowflake?, Tomi fires off several reasons for calling people snowflakes in under five

minutes turning the once form of precipitation into an insult. With reasons such as if the term

white christmas sounds racist to you, you might be a snowflake, and if you think someone

else, like taxpayers, should pay for your tuition or your student loans, you might be a

snowflake. For Tomi, ranting and raving on The Blaze has brought her fame and recognition

in major news and political based shows. But when we make people famous for doing this, what

does this mean? Of course, Trevor Noah, host of The Daily Show, and Stephen Colbert, host of

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, are no exception because they do the exact same thing

Tomi Lahren does, but wheres the outrage for what they say? By no means do I support Tomi
Lahren or most of her views, but the way she carries herself in her segments turns democrats,

like myself, away. She voices her opinions unapologetically and most of the time irrationally,

leaving holes in her arguments for others to fill in with criticism and judgement and also causing

her to lose her job The Blaze. She enjoys ruffling the feathers of the left-wing media, but in

return gets a lot of backlash and hate from both democrats and republicans alike because of how

she approaches certain subjects.

However, in chapter 16 of The Fault Line, Hallowell explains why he feels free speech is

under attack by political correctness. People are becoming more afraid to speak their minds and

its understandably so. They dont want to offend anyone for their beliefs and dont want to be

attacked for them either putting free speech and expression at risk. In the media, especially,

people are attacked for their ideals regularly and its sickening. As an example, Hallowell uses a

former Miss USA contestant, Carrie Prejean. During the pageant, Prejean was asked if she

believed all states should follow suit of Vermont. and legalize gay marriage, to which she replied

Well, I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that

you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. In my country and in my family I

believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to to anybody out

there, but thats how I was raised, and thats how I think that it should be-between a man and a

woman. In return of her response, she was attacked with personal, abusive attacks from the

left-wing media. She was ridiculed and judged throughout blog sites and media outlets, but

despite the attacks, she remained strong and stood by her words, but because of her response, she

lost the competition. The lack of conservatives in the media leaves them without a voice in a

liberal dominated area. The idea of freedom for me and none for thee mentality has taken over

minds leading them to despise opinions that are different. The author goes on by saying ...it
appears many of us either missed that message entirely or are internally deciding that certain

opinions and perspectives are the only ones worthy of being heard.

In the article The United States safe space campus controversy and the paradox of

freedom of speech, written by Jordi Pujol, an assistant professor of media ethics and law at the

Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, a public opinion poll was taken in 38 countries

about main democratic principles in November of 2015. The principles included religious

freedom, free press, equal rights, internet without censorship, honest elections, and free speech.

In the poll, it was concluded that the U.S. strongly supported free speech, free press, and internet

freedom while also being the country that has the greatest tolerance for offensive speech to

minorities and religion. In college campuses all across the country, students are demanding safe

spaces which prohibit offensive speech that could potentially hurt their feelings. These are the

same students who are challenging guest speakers, protesting professors, and blocking films on

college campuses. The administration abides by the students wishes due to the fact that,

technically, students are customers who pay up to $60,000 a year to attend college. In the article,

the author uses the views of three participants, the students, the faculty, and the university

administrators, to figure out who is to blame for the liberal principle of absolute tolerance of

speech being under attack. The author goes on by asking but the question is how can freedom

of expression be restored when so many of those who should defend it on campus (faculty and

administrators), have either turned against it or have surrendered or at least subordinated it to

other ideals? College campuses are a way for students to experience free thought and explore

different standpoints and ideas in current debates. We are stifling the freedom to think openly

and freely because were too afraid of being offended. Its a fickle situation when were raised to

believe if you dont have anything nice to say then dont say it all; however, there isnt an exact
boundary between free speech and hate speech which leads the author to inquire are we facing

hypersensitive reactions of the students, or are we facing a post-traumatic reaction to the

bombardment of hate speech? To fight for absolute freedom of speech, you are also fighting for

the immorality of hate speech. But if we put limits on what can be said, is it really even free

speech? It depends on your own moral foundations.

A contributing author to the book Unsafe Space: The Crisis of Free Speech on Campus,

Tom Slater, deputy editor at spiked, argues that restricting speech is a tragedy. He also believes

that campuses should be a place for thinking and speaking freely. He emphasizes that this new

intolerance poses a threat not only to students, but to the entire, truth-seeking mission of the

academy. In the 2015 report done by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, it was

found that over 55 percent of colleges restrict speech. In 1964, however, it was a different story.

Students fought to have their say starting the Free Speech Movement at the University of

California to fight the administrators for their right to free speech and organize politically on

campus. Now, it seems as though limiting free speech is more of a moral obligation other than

silencing ideological threats. I definitely believe that older generations fought hard to be able to

speak and think freely and today it seems like everything they have worked for is being thrown

away by students and administrators who dont want to offend anyone. Now, Im not saying you

should be able to walk around and say hateful things, but, if you do, you should be able to take

the heat for it. Whoever says those things should be punished for it, not by insulting or belittling

them, but by educating and informing them that what theyre saying is hurtful and can cause a lot

of issues. I believe that everyone deserves the chance to say whatever they feel, but be prepared,

because the world isnt nice, nor is it sugarcoated. So, why do colleges feel the need to limit
speech? When students walk across the stage and off of a college campus into the real world,

life isnt going to be limit what others think and feel around you.

Timothy McGettigan, a sociology professor at the Colorado State University, has a

similar viewpoint: places of higher education shouldnt be able to tell you what you can and

cant say. He argues that colleges and universities have a special obligation to foster vibrant

free speech environments Higher education must not tell students what to think, it should

equip students with a better grasp of how to think it. In this article, McGettigan discusses

points made in Unlearning Liberty, written about threats to freedom of speech on college

campuses, by Greg Lukianoff, a First Amendment attorney and the President of the Foundation

for Individual Rights in Education, and explains why he agrees or disagrees. Lukianoff begins

his novel by highlighting the issues dealing with certainty. Certainty is a threat to freedom of

speech because it is a presumption that someones ideas are already perfect and that there is no

need or room for reform whereas doubt is a form of wisdom, an open window where new ideas

have a possibility of coming in and introducing new thought. Certainty, to me, is a similar

concept to the new type of political correctness, an idea that there is only one way to do things

and it is the absolute right way and doubt is free speech. Certainty beats down on doubt, making

it hard for people to be unsure and curious. The author explains this by saying Those who are

certain in their beliefs tend to be less tolerant of opposing viewpoints and less willing to

compromiselest they be tempted to diverge one iota from their presumptively perfect

convictions. He believes it is important to preserve free speech because criticism attacks and

destroys bad ideas while testing and strengthening the good. As an example, he uses Charles

Darwins theory of evolution. Although Darwin faced vicious attacks from critics and the

science community, he made sure that no matter how bad those attacks might be, that his theory
would not wilt and would endure. McGettigan believes if you truly believe in free speech, then

you have to be prepared to take your lumps, stand up to ferocious criticism, and defend the free

speech rights of people with whom you diametrically disagree. As he points out, people really

dont understand the meaning of free speech. You cant voice your opinions and expect not to

get criticism for whatever you say. But that doesnt mean that whatever you say isnt valid. The

author quotes Voltaire saying I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death

your right to say it.

These are the ideas and thought that give free speech meaning. All of these ideas are

from different people from different environments and they all have one thing in common: they

love free speech. They use their platforms to bring this issue to light and offer their ideas on why

this is happening and why its something that shouldnt be happening. College campuses have

no right to take away free speech and have no right to tell students what to think. With more

young people being more tolerant to new ideas and beliefs, you would think that people would

be able to handle a little criticism and be able to take it with a grain of salt. You dont necessarily

have to change your whole belief system to match everything that the world is throwing at you,

but its okay to at least consider these ideas and how they work. Recently, the differences

between younger and older generations has contributed to the divide in the U.S. Older

generations feel that the young people of today are spoiled, privileged, and ignorant to how

great America used to be. Especially considering that older generations are more prone to be

conservative. Theres no denying that America used to be much better off economically, but its

changing socially. The mentality of the new generations is what the future will look like,

whether you see that as bad or not. Yes, the older generation fought hard for the right to free

speech, and yes, the younger generation is trying to limit it making this generation look like a
bunch of snowflakes, but isnt good that the younger generation is getting involved in the first

place? No, I dont agree with what is going on in campuses all across the country, maybe even

the world, and I dont like being labeled as a snowflake for it. I believe that if you say

something, you should be able to take the criticism for what you say. I believe you should be

able to take criticism for your actions. We are college students. We are the future generation.

We are who our children and grandchildren will look up to. Why are we too afraid to be

offended? Why are we too afraid of people who have opposing opinions? Why are we, the

generation who are most open to other religions and beliefs, being so closed off that its actually

becoming a serious issue? I dont believe that we are weak and I dont believe that we should be

called snowflakes. I believe that we should show everyone what were really made of. As a

part of the snowflake generation, I believe that we should be able to speak freely, and let others

do the same as well.

 Works Cited

Hallowell, Billy. "Campus Chaos Rages." Fault Line. Lake Mary, FL: FrontLine, 2017. 79-85.
Print.

Hallowell, Billy. "Is Free Speech Under Attack?" Fault Line. Lake Mary, FL: FrontLine, 2017.
135-144. Print.

Lahren, Tomi. "What Does It Mean to Be a Snowflake?" TheBlaze. TheBlaze, 10 Jan. 2017.
Web. 25 Apr. 2017.

McGettigan, Timothy, Survival of the Fittest Ideas: The Enduring Importance of Free Speech on
Campus (September 4, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2834643 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2834643

Pujol, Jordi. "The United States Safe Space Campus Controversy and the Paradox of Freedom
of Speech." Church, Communication and Culture 1.1 (2016): 240-54. Church,
Communication and Culture. 27 Oct. 2016. Web. 04 May 2017.

Slater, Tom. "Introduction: Reinvigorating the Spirit of '64." Introduction. Unsafe Space The
Crisis of Free Speech on Campus. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2016. 1-4. Print.