Using critical examples, Lukianoff and Haidt have proven that at times it is only the person who takes things to seriously and can lead to trouble for students. To begin they have found that in today's society, people may take one phrase and use it for another reason such as in this example. In Lukianoff and Haidt's article, they have presented this idea, "Search-engine trends indicate that the phrase [trigger warnings] broke into mainstream use online around 2011, spiked in 2014, and reached an all-time high in 2015." This talks about the use of Trigger warnings that were originally used for people dealing with traumatic events. Now with the rise in popularity as seen above, students used this for their own troubles, not nearly as traumatic as the word "trigger warning" was intended for. As students going through college they may become sensetive to certain items such as this next example. …show more content…
Lukianoff and Haidt present this study from the Foundation for Individual Rights in education in which shows that since 2000 people have done campaigns to prevent public figures from appearing at events. Lukianoff and Haidt go on to say that two people most campaigned against would be Christine Lagarde and Condoleezza all for a part of this person's record, being a questionable role in Iraq War, and policies in the IMF. This shouldn't define a person just it was a part of their record. Lukianoff and Haidt also say that Lagarde and Rice could be seen as a role model for female students. Something to inspire them not to harm them in any way but they continue to this negatively of this decision. This shows that students want to build emotional walls around them to protect themselves from ideas that are not harmful in any way. This continues to harm the student mentally as they begin to take every little thing as offensive and see the whole world against them, when in all actuality it isn't. If continued to be allowed this may cause severe problems to future generations of students and cause harm to