Four years ago a British teacher, Ms. R. Clifford, ventured outside her specialty of religious education to tackle the subject of Racism and Sexism in the imaginary children’s world created by Walt Disney. While teaching a class of older children and teens, she produced a lesson plan seeking to alert students to the “darker side of Disney,” the depiction of young women as princesses and potential victims of domestic abuse. With the best of intentions as a Millennial Generation teacher, Ms Clifford then uploaded it to a popular resource-sharing website, along with the 122 other lessons.
With 2016 winding down and the raging “Generation Snowflake” controversy very much alive in the U.K., Ms Clifford’s Lesson Plan generated a mainstream news and social media firestorm. “Bonkers school lesson plan claims Beauty & the Beast promotes domestic violence,” The Sun proclaimed on November 16, 2016, warning scandalized readers that the “loony lesson plan” was now available in “thousands of classrooms” and a graphic example of ‘political correctness’ desecrating beloved Disney children’s tales. One British Tory MP, Phil Davies, went so far as to describe Clifford’s lessons as brainwashing and urged his own government to “stop this idiocy and ensure schools teach things that parents expect.”
Vocal critics of Ms. Clifford’s Racism and Sexism in Disney lesson attributed her perspective to being a member of the Snowflake Generation, those born in the 1980s and 1990s, who are regularly lampooned as protected, coddled and easily offended, or worse, labeled as ‘censorious cry babies.’ For a teacher whose lessons and resources have been downloaded over 300,000 times, it was a huge shock to be drawn-and-quartered in the national media. It also illustrated just how much resistance was building in opposition to the prevailing beliefs of a younger generation with a growing influence as teachers in the classroom.
Generational fragility is, of course, a real phenomenon, especially in schools and on college campuses. Many teachers and students today are made nervous and uneasy by advocates espousing strong opinions contrary to their own or by vigorous debate pushing at the boundaries of acceptable discourse. The anti-bullying industry in and around schools has mushroomed over the past two decades. Whereas once “bullying” meant having your’head kicked-in,’ your money stolen in the schoolyard, or subjection to horrible cruelties, today’s students are protected from most, if not all, ‘slings-and-arrows,’ including relatively innocuous “teasing and name-calling,” “insensitive jokes,” and “bullying gestures.”
Outspoken British writer and founder of the Institute of Ideas Claire Fox worries that today’s kids and teens have been socialized to be “too soft” and “aggrieved” by even the smallest of “micro-aggressions.” Banning outdoor games like tree climbing, leapfrog, marbles, or Red Rover are commonplace, and one school head changed the colour of her school’s red uniform because of obscure research connecting it with ‘increased heart and breathing rates.’ Teachers and students talk about “safe spaces” where classrooms are protected against the rough edges of the real outside world.
A healthy public debate is underway in the United Kingdom, but has yet to really surface inside most North American school systems. Back in February 2016, London teacher Tom Bennett, Student Behaviour Advisor to the U.K. Government, waded into the public debate. The prevalence of “mollycoddled students,” he told The Daily Mail, began in school when too many children were protected from the “harsher realities of the world” and then had trouble confronting challenging and unsettling ideas in college and university.
The ‘No Platforming’ movement barring controversial speakers from uttering “offensive views,” according to Bennett and other defenders of free speech within limits, may well be a reflection of “Snowflake” sensitivities. While it’s mainly a college campus issue, there are clear signs that today’s classroom teachers are more careful than ever about steering clear of controversial social issues. It was “irresponsible” for adults, including teachers, Bennett added, to pretend that offensive views do not exist and it would be better to “create a kind of healthy space — not a safe space –for debate to appear” in our high schools and colleges.
Does “Generation Snowflake” exist or is it merely an artificial construct? To what extent has a kind of “Snowflake Generation” outlook and approach emerged in teaching and the education world? Have schools and colleges gone too far in insulating older children and teens against unpleasant encounters with life’s harsher realities? If Walt Disney’s imaginary fantasy world is now deemed harmful to kids, what comes next?
I actually agree that Cinderella, Snow While… are poor role models for young women but I lost interest in teaching my one course at York after endless discussions of “safe spaces…trigger words…” I could go on and on.
agreed.
Circle the calendar 😅
The rise of “Safe Space” culture is somehow connected to the influence of Snowflake Generation sensibilities. While researching this commentary, I stumbled upon a South Park video, “My Safe Space’ (2015), that scores a direct hit on the new orthodoxy in schools. I hesitate to call it “romantic progressivism” because it is so fearful, cautious and cowering to be have any reformist lineage.
Take a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzU05QmJMDg&feature=player_embedded
It’s poignant and revealing about a new orthodoxy that effectively silences the free expression of views. Freedom of expression has its limits, but this new orthodoxy forecloses on real discussion of contentious issues and challenging ideas.
“Safe Space” philosophy can also have a deadening effect on Panel Discussions in education. Back in November 2016, I attended a Public Forum on the film PAPER TIGERS and was struck by the established “guidelines” or “parameters” set out for the moderated Question and Answer session.
The controversial documentary about an American Special Needs School was shown, followed by an 8-person panel, all women, most of whom reinforced the same message – about the need for “safe, trauma-free spaces” and “more learning supports.” No one mentioned that it supported the case for more such schools in Nova Scotia. When it came to the truncated Q & A, it was clear that challenging, tough questions were not welcome. It had a deadening effect on the whole public discussion. I left shaking my head about where we were drifting.
https://www.evensi.ca/paper-tigers-documentary-screening-and-panel-discussion/191115496
I think her lesson was done in earnest, not as a warning to avoid Disney movies because they are not politically correct. Disney’s movies have a long history of racist overtones. One only has to look at Dumbo and the scene with the crows with their heavy black accents. Or “Lion King” with the hyenas being the bad guys, with their obvious black accents. With respect to fairy tales, however, one need only look at the stories themselves, not at Disney’s treatment of same.
I think that lesson plans deconstructing Disney films, and media in general, are not attempts by “Generation Snowflake” to over-coddle and censor, but instead are done in the effort to foster critical thinking, culturally-sensitive analysis, and responsible media consumption – all of which are desperately needed in today’s political climate. Not having seen the lessons themselves, I can’t speak to whether or not this teacher fostered debate in her lessons or instead used her classroom as a platform to share her personal beliefs around Disney, but I think that this type of lesson can be done responsible and with the goal of making today’s learners less sheltered and more critical of the media that they consume.
Reblogged this on The Echo Chamber.