07 Feb ARE SAFE SPACES CAUSING DANGER?

After three seasons
with little flu activity,
the dreaded illness came
back with a fury. In the
last few weeks, almost
every family I know has
been hit by either the flu,
Covid-19, RSV, or some
combination of them, leaving people feeling
as sick as they have ever been and taking
weeks to recover their strength and shake
their cough.
Why are people, particularly children,
getting sick with every virus, all at once?
According to many experts, we are paying
back a collective “immunity debt.”
Though far from accepted by all, according
to many, the result of the locking down,
distancing, masking and sterilizing surfaces
is an immune system that isn’t primed,
engaged, and ready to fight what comes its
way. That isn’t to say those weren’t correct
policies at the time, rather it is to recognize
that there was an unintended consequence,
immunity debt that was incurred when we
essentially pampered and protected our
systems so they were unprepared or primed to
withstand the viruses that came their way.
Paying off debt is never fun and it especially
hurts when the currency is viruses and
respiratory diseases.
When I read about this phenomenon, I

thought not about the flu or Covid, but about
its implications or analog in the world of our
emotions and mental well-being.
In December, Stanford University’s IT
department introduced the Elimination of
Harmful Language Initiative with a long list
of words and phrases it considers “potentially
harmful” and suggestions of an alternative

word or term. “Guys” is considered “gender-
based” and it groups people into gender

binary groups and recommend using “folks,”
“people,” or “everyone,” instead.
“American” is discouraged because it “refers
to people from the United States only, thereby
insinuating that the US is the most important
country in the Americas (which is actually
made up of 42 countries)”.
Stanford’s committee recommends instead
to use “U.S. citizen.” At Stanford, you can’t
“master” your subject, as “historically,
masters enslaved people.” Studies should
never be “blind,” they should better be
described as “masked.” Don’t write a “white
paper,” since it “assigns value connotations
based on color, an act which is subconsciously
racialized.” Stay away from “war room,”
which represents the “unnecessary use of
violent language.” Ironically, it suggested
not using “trigger warning” because “the
phrase can cause stress about what’s to
follow.”
Not surprisingly, the list generated

significant backlash and pushback causing
the university to take down the website a few
weeks ago, almost immediately after it had
launched. Steve Gallagher, Stanford’s chief
information officer, wrote: “The feedback
that this work was broadly viewed as counter
to inclusivity means we missed the intended
mark. It is for this reason that we have taken
down the EHLI site.”
It turns out that cancelling the use of trigger
warning was triggering for those who want to
be able to speak freely. This episode and this
failed attempt are a great illustration of the
challenge to find the careful balance between
promoting and pushing for sensitivity, while
not creating an environment with an
unintended consequence of over-sensitivity.
On the one hand, we should be intolerant of
abusive, inconsiderate, and insensitive
language that unnecessarily hurts and harms
people. But on the other, we need to build
people’s resilience and toughness to not be so
sensitive to the point they are harmed or
injured by words that had no negative
intentions. We have made enormous progress
in promoting more sensitive language but at
the same we must not create such a regulated
and sterilized world in which the slightest
insensitivity will trigger victimhood and
injury.
Are we unintentionally creating an
emotional immunity debt that paradoxically
puts the very people we are trying to
protect in greater danger of being
harmed?
Prominent NYU social psychologist
Jonathan Haidt recently argued that Gen
Z (those born between 1997 and 2012),
has been set up for failure due to a
confluence of social media, bad parenting,
and a culture that emphasizes victimhood.
Gen Z’ers are “fragile,” he says, unable to
cope effectively with the normal stresses
and challenges of adulthood.
In their book, “The Coddling of the
American Mind,” Haidt and co-author
Greg Lukianoff coined the expression
Safetyism. “Safetyism refers to a culture
or belief system in which safety has
become a sacred value, which means that
people are unwilling to make trade-offs
demanded by other practical and moral
concerns.” They argue that all this
protection, hypersensitivity and
“safetyism” is in fact breeding anxiety,
depression and the danger of significant
mental health challenges.
When it comes to allergies, the thinking
used to be the more precautions the better.
More and more schools went nut-free to
protect those with dangerous allergies.
But it turns out, studies showed that
allergy-free zones were not only
ineffective in keeping people safe, they
were often counterproductive because
allergy sufferers developed a false sense
of security. Researchers noticed that
Israel has a relatively low rate of allergies
in general and one allergy in particular,
peanuts, which is strange considering that

not only do Israelis not shield children from
peanuts, they bring them up eating them in
the form of Bamba. Ultimately, a study found
that 1.9% of children with allergy risk factors
who were fed peanuts developed an allergy
by their fifth birthday while among children
not given peanuts, the figure was 13.9%. In
other words, they found if you don’t want
your children to develop a peanut allergy,
don’t create an environment free of peanuts,
feed them peanuts early and often.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that we
expose children to hurtful and insensitive
language early or often so that they don’t later
have an allergic reaction when they hear it. It
should be a universal belief that people
should always take care with the words and
language they use and certainly avoid saying
anything to intentionally harm or offend.
People must also understand that sometimes
their words can genuinely harm even if they
did not intend to.
However, I do believe that our effort to
create an environment preventing exposure to
anything “triggering” can have the unintended
negative consequence of lowering our
“immunity” and heightening our “allergic
reactions” when something is said or written.
We must not raise an overly delicate and
fragile generation who can become
emotionally injured or paralyzed too easily.
When Man is created, the Torah tells us, חַּ֥פ ִּי ַו
God, “בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁ מַת חַי ִּים ו ַי ְהִ֥י הָאָדָם לְנֶ֥פֶׁש חַי ָּה
blew into Man’s nostrils a Soul of life, and he
became a living creature.” Targum Unklus
explains “living creature” means “a speaking
spirit.” What differentiates people from
animals is our power of speech. Indeed,
Shlomo HaMelech (Mishlei 18:21) warns us:
the in are life and Death, “מָו ֶת ו ְחַי ִּים בְּי ַד־לָׁשֹון
power of the tongue.”
Classically, this is understood as a caution to
be vigilant and careful in our use of words
and to ensure we don’t harm others with
them. Perhaps, though, it is also a warning
not to allow our life or death, or happiness or
sadness to be determined by the words of
others. Our job is to both be sensitive with
how we speak to, and about others, but also
not be overly sensitive regarding how others
speak to us.
We must condition ourselves and our
children towards sensitivity while also
building our resilience and tenacity. We must
not relinquish our happiness or well-being to
the comments or even actions of others. Let’s
not create a collective emotional immunity
debt or coddle those around us in a way that
unintentionally harms the very people we are
committed to protect and keep safe.