In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged on college campuses: the rise of emotional reasoning as a guiding principle for discourse, policy, and even curriculum. Well-intentioned educators, administrators, and peers often affirm a harmful idea: “If you feel hurt, then you’ve been harmed.” But this belief doesn’t build strength—it undermines it.
At the heart of this shift is a concept psychologists call emotional reasoning: the belief that one’s feelings accurately reflect reality. It’s one of several cognitive distortions—mental habits that twist perception and lead us away from truth and resilience. This framework comes from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), a proven approach to treating anxiety and depression. Pioneered by Aaron Beck in the 1960s, CBT helps individuals identify and challenge unhelpful thought patterns, including:
-
Catastrophizing – imagining the worst possible outcome (“If that speaker comes to campus, students will be traumatized!”)
-
Black-and-white thinking – dividing people or ideas into good or evil, safe or unsafe, with no room for nuance
-
Fortune-telling – assuming we know how others will respond (“If I share this opinion, I’ll be attacked or canceled”)
These patterns aren’t just inaccurate—they’re toxic to mental health. Yet, many Gen Z students are being subtly taught to embrace them.
A Generation Taught to Fear Discomfort
Jonathan Haidt, co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, observed a startling shift around 2013–2014: for the first time, students themselves were asking for trigger warnings, safe spaces, and restrictions on speech—not out of rebellion, but fear. This shift coincided with a documented rise in anxiety, depression, and self-harm among teens and college students—especially young women.
Why? Social media and overprotective parenting play key roles. From a young age, Gen Z has been immersed in an environment where discomfort is treated not as a growth opportunity, but as a threat. Combined with cultural messages like “always trust your feelings,” it creates a fragile mental ecosystem—one where perceived emotional harm is equated with real trauma, and challenging ideas are treated as acts of aggression.
Universities Are Losing Their Telos
Traditionally, the Telos—the purpose—of a university is the pursuit of truth. Students were expected to encounter ideas that challenged them, even offended them, as part of their intellectual development. But when emotional reasoning dominates, this Telos erodes.
Instead of fostering resilience, many institutions now prioritize emotional safety. But avoiding discomfort doesn’t prepare students for life after graduation—it leaves them vulnerable to the normal stresses of adult life. As Van Jones put it, “I don’t want you to be safe emotionally—I want you to be strong.”
Teaching Strength Instead of Fragility
What if instead of shielding students from hard conversations, we taught them how to navigate them? What if, alongside critical thinking and communication, we gave students tools from CBT to recognize when their thoughts are distorting reality?
A university that teaches students how to question their assumptions—not just defend their feelings—is one that builds strong, adaptable minds. And those minds are exactly what our increasingly polarized, emotionally reactive world needs.
Conclusion:
Emotions are valid—but they’re not always right. In a culture that celebrates feeling above thinking, we risk raising a generation that’s less prepared, less resilient, and more anxious. It’s time to reclaim the wisdom of stoicism, CBT, and the classical ideals of education: challenge your mind, sharpen your reason, and let discomfort be a teacher—not a threat.
Want to learn how schools like Acton Academy are cultivating resilience and critical thinking in young people? Download our free Info Kit to see how we equip students to navigate real life—not just the classroom.
