« First and goal: Claire Wallace on a woman’s place in football broadcasting | Main | Scary foods: Aaron E. Carroll on healthy eating without fear »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dharampal Singh

The thing is that the most concerning is the increasing sensitivity in the area of social media.One can't predict how much audience a particular issue will attract.As a result,the conservatives are not favour of open discussion of an issue in an educational institution that may go viral.
The author talks about the 'special snowflakes'.It seems like author was little bit confused in categorising who the snowflakes really are.On one hand,he said it is the youth who have so many questions in their mind which they want to discuss.On the other hand he said it is the conservative people who are not in favour of any change.But if we gone to take today's scenario ,social media is the source of different views . We all are the special snowflakes who might get influenced but their views can be different based on their exposure.

Jessica Colloca

In recent discussions of the degradation of women's power in authoritative positions, a controversial issue has been whether the judgement of women's appearances holds them back form expressing their ideas. On one hand, some argue that the critiques on appearance are something that women in the public eye have always had to put up with. From this perspective, there is no room for change, there is simply tolerance of ignorant behavior and no solution or reasoning is given. On the other hand, however, others argue that these insults effect women's drive to be in the public eye such as political figure or a broadcaster. In the words of Meredith Simons, one of this view's main proponents, "Some women have switched from broadcast journalism to print journalism to keep themselves out of the public eye. Women thinking about running for office may think better of it when they see other women pilloried for being insufficiently attractive." According to this view, the threat of being put down and criticized for the way they look is getting in the way of women's career goals and views of themselves. In sum, then, the issue is whether the critics of the female body need to take a step back and think before they speak, tweet, and post or if the public and people in the public eye need to speak out against the harsh words in order for women to be able to rise up and dominate our government and society as a whole.
My own view is that insulting women is just an excuse to push them down in fear that they might rise above a man. Though I concede that, women have always had this pressure on them to be physically attractive or pleasurable for a man, I still maintain that, the insults used to this day are stuck in the past. They are pushing gender roles onto the current generation and telling women that they are incapable of being leaders or making changes with their own original idea. For example, when lawmakers say that women are ugly, and unworthy of even recognition, even if it is negative of powerful men such as Donald Trump, they are struck down from their hopes of making social change. Although some might object that there is nobody who can stop this harassment besides the harassers themselves, I would reply that the public can indeed aid in the justice for women's stance in the political and social mainstream of our society; women need to call out their lawmakers, senators, and governors in order to make the change they are being told they cannot. This is important because feminism is a topic that draws the attention of millions, good and bad. Common people must come together and rally support for feminism in order for equality to be reached.
In conclusion, then as I suggested earlier, defenders of the argument regarding women's place in society can't have it both ways. Their assertion that there is nothing we can do as everyday people to make a change in our governing officials' minds is contradicted by their claim that women in government are a threat to men's authority. If men really felt as though looks ruled over ideology and skill they would not feel threatened enough to put them down.

Bob Stan DD

What if you debate with everyone like your friends or your boyfriend/girlfriend and always lose those debates. Would this help me with getting a W on my next debate? I want to know.



Greg (probably bald)

Hi Bob


U mad?

Donald trump





I respek u gurl


I see your point Bob, but I’d like to say that you’re wrong, it’s hello

Jose Hernandez

I actually enjoyed reading this article because it made me me view the topic in a different point of view. Responding to the first question, I believe that Eddie S. Glaude Jr. made an interesting point of how words are exchanged in school campuses. I am in a community college so the student population is not the same as student populations attending a university. I think this is because in a university people are there living and interacting with one another more than a community college. This constant interaction can cause for people to behave in different dynamics. Glaude believes that everyone should be able to talk to one another about different views, and should not be called “snowflakes” when one does not agree. He continues to say that protests and riots are not the norm when it comes to guest speakers. It only appears to be that way because both sides put a lot of those types of reactions in the news, or social media. Glaude says that most of the interactions are actually very civil and calm, which is something I would enjoy to watch. What I thought was most convincing is when Glaude said that people do have the right to freedom of speech, but one should present his or her ideas in an appropriate manner. When one presents his or her ideas in a hateful manner, then there are going to be responses of rebellion. I agree with his idea of presenting one’s ideas appropriately because that is the best way to get a conversation going. I believe that the best way for any type of progress to be made is when two sides actually have a debate and present their ideas. This allows for new ideas to be formed, and any type of progress to be accomplished. I think Glaude is also trying to call out both sides for not being able to listen to one another. On the left side, there are people who are quickly to think that when one is conservative he or she is a racist. On the right side, you have conservatives that try to promote a message in an appropriate way, and still expect the left side to not respond in the same manner. If both sides were able to communicate in a better way, then calling one a “snowflake” will not be an issue.

Keri Lamle

It might be said that author Eddie S Gaude Jr.'s article, " Special Snowflakes: Eddie Glaude Jr on campus free speech debate" offers nuanced insight into a discrepancy between society's willingness to protect the free speech rights of those of both sides of the political spectrum. But, the problem with such a belief is in assuming Mr. Glaude's neatly constructed argument is both logically sound and valid. Evidence, which I might add, that is not present when one stops to note the unethical use of logical fallacy after logical fallacy across Glaude's entire claim.

Starting with his ad hominem attack of the left as being "special snowflakes", to the obvious use of confirmation bias in the articles selected to support Mr. Glaude's free speech discrepancy claims, and concluding with the authors final use of a straw man fallacy to misrepresent the left's claim objections.

In conclusion, Mr. Glaude's entire position relies heavily on the unethical use of cognitive nudging, or logical fallacies, to inflate his perceived sense of injustice. In doing so, Mr. Glaude fails to acknowledge the counter claims being made by the left and fails to fully dispute evidence of such free speech rallies as being destructive avenues of hate speech. In fact, throughout Mr. Glaude's entire argument, he cleverly avoids addressing the root cause for societal opposition to such rallies.

Note: While I understand that 'They Say, I Say' instructional method does not offer direct instruction in such logical principles as I have employed here to deconstruct Mr. Glaude's argument, I cannot accept authors Graff and Birkenstein conclusion that such direct instruction would prove ineffective or provide little benefit to a bewildered academic writer.

For it is through the study of both the templates needed to convey one's message with clarity (skill) and the understanding of logical principles as: ad hominem, bandwagon, and the straw man fallacies (knowledge) that one becomes aware of the cognitive nudging be exerted by author Eddie S Glaude's Jr in his recent article 'Special Snowflakes: Eddie S Glaude Jr on campus free speech debates' and is then able to articulate the importance of noting such influences to a wider audience.

In sum, I would offer that in the using of the authors Graff and Berkenstien's implied pedagogical analogy of writing moves to that of chess, that one finds the omitting of instructional content in logical fallacies is analogous to neglecting to provide direct instruction in the strategic use of one's knights.

John Link

I wonder if Mrs. Lamle even read this article. While I disagree with it for other reasons, the author if very clearly NOT agreeing with those that call the left "special snoflakes". He even goes so far as to insinuate that the opposite is actually true in the last paragraph. It's almost like you read the title, skimmed the article, got triggered and wrote a response that, while well written,completely misses the authors point. In this case I'd say you're one of the "Snoflakes" since you can't see past your own bias' to read the article with an open mind and process the thoughts that are written on the screen in front of you.


Glaude Jr. makes an interesting point on the distinction between hateful and conservative speech. His main argument, I believe is making it clear that these protests and boycotts against speakers are not welcome on a college campus. The whole idea of a "safe space" is contradictory to the foundation of a university. It is ideally a center of the collaboration of a vast spectrum of thoughts and cultures. However in recent years this has changed with the concern over "hate speech" and "political correctness". These are very simple philosophies that establish there are certain words that can be spoken to certain people that will cause offence. I believe it will take time, as it took us as a country a long time before we stopped kicking liberals off college campuses. We are in a transitional period in American culture and for there to be a consensus on both sides of this argument then we will always have something that offends us.


The same statement could be made about liberals – not all liberal speech is hateful speech. Glaude states that the liberals only protest when there are hateful remarks made by conservatives. He fails to include the fact that some liberal speech can and is hateful speech. Glaude’s article includes multiple uses of logical fallacy: one being oversimplifications. He groups all conservatives and all liberals together, and makes generalized comments on each side. He also uses a red herring by ignoring the claims about liberals, and switching over to blame conservatives. This could also be seen as the hypocrisy fallacy- failing to prove a point and rather pointing out the hypocrisy in the opponent. When discussing the hypocrisy of conservatives in the article, he says “When others reasonably call them racist or sexist or homophobic, they clutch their pearls and cry foul.” And additionally states that, “Spencer believes white people are superior to black people. How can I reasonably argue with someone who believes he is innately better?” These statements are thrown out to the readers. No where in the article does Glaude give statements that show their validity. Who is the author to tell me who someone is, what they believe, and their view of life? I am not stating I disagree, I am simply stating that I need a reason to believe, not just a university professor’s statement towards a topic. In the beginning, Glaude states that “Public universities like the University of Wisconsin, Madison, are suffering under the weight of a conservative legislature and Governor Scott Walker.” Even though he mentions how when stating that, “lawmakers are passing deeply hypocritical ‘campus free speech’ legislation to curb the right to free speech in the name of protecting conservatives,” he never mentions what the laws were or how they favored the right and not the left.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

By signing up you agree to W. W. Norton’s
privacy policy and terms of use.

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan