by John
Stevenson
In the
fitness center of Ottawa's Carleton University, someone complained to the gym
management that she found that the presence of a scale triggers her
anxiety. She requested the scale be
removed. Presumably, the scale
traumatized her by reminding her that she is fat.
Now you
would assume that management would simply tell her not to use the scale. Not good enough. Apparently her anxiety was triggered not by actually
using the scale but by its mere presence within her view.
So---and
you won’t believe this part---they actually removed
the scale so that this one gym user would not be emotionally distressed. Don’t stop reading---this is not a joke.
Of
course a controversy erupted, because there are apparently still some sane
members of the campus community. There
has been a backlash and ridicule of the decision to remove the scale. One student suggested banning mirrors because
they could be equally distressing. Another
suggested banning calculators because they reminded him he is flunking a math
class. One social media post summarized:
“Are you for real, Carleton? What a sick joke.”
Stepping
away from the absurdity for a moment, let’s consider the merits of this
decision: how it will benefit the afflicted student. Presumably, she will go on to live in a world
beyond ivied Carleton. There she will doubtless
encounter other anxiety-triggering events and objects. Will the drill sergeant, the employer, the
highway patrolman, or anyone else in the real world beyond academia leap to
accommodate her need to be shielded from reality? Doubtful.
In
fact, while there is not absolute consensus among psychologists, the preponderance
of thought is that confronting rather than running away from problems is the
better course. Most laymen
(oops---laypersons) would agree. So it’s
likely that the intuition of those who ridiculed the management decision was
correct: hiding from the problem is a bad decision.
Two
things strike me about this incident.
First is the fact that a very small minority (or even a single complainer)
is able to alter life for so many others who are just trying to go to work,
class, the gym, whatever. That seems to
happen all too frequently, with the many having to accommodate the needs---real
or imagined and no matter how frivolous or dubious---of one or a very few who
claim offense or emotional trauma. And
this is most prevalent in the academic world, where administrators seem
incapable of saying no, get over it, buck up, case dismissed.
Second,
I often wonder if the complainer is just a prankster, looking for the most
absurd possible offense to allege, just to see if it will be taken as
legitimate and then to savor the ensuing chaos.
There are daily examples of supposed emotional trauma in the news, and
it almost seems as if they are competing in an absurdity derby.
After
all, these ever-escalating claims of offense are emanating from college
campuses---and college kids are notorious pranksters. Back in the day, it was panty raids. Today it’s a contest to see who can come up
with the most absurd complaint and yet be taken seriously.
