Should this thread carry a warning that it is not a safe space?
“I would have assumed the LGBTQ+ support group at a university to be an intellectual, as well as physical safe space. since I also would have assumed individuals would have an expectation of being shielded from anti-gay rhetoric while participating in activities with the group. Maybe I don’t understand the concept of intellectual safe space?”
Here’s an example. Let’s dial back to pre-SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage and pretend that it’s only legal in certain states. People who were pro-gay marriage could have differing views on the following:
- Whether gay marriage is the most important agenda item to vote on versus other issues (economy, foreign policy, etc)
- Whether one should or shouldn’t boycott visiting or doing business in states which had rejected gay marriage at the polls
- Whether the biggest cause of opposition was evangelicals, Mormons, etc and what should the appropriate strategy be to overcome that
See what I’m saying? Yes, it’s a safe space insofar as no one is going to say “gays should go burn in hell.” But people can still have intellectual differences of opinion about a topic. UC is distinguishing between safe spaces (no harassment) and intellectual safe spaces (I shouldn’t have to hear any opinion I don’t like). It’s a pretty easy distinction to me.
Another example of a safe space versus an intellectual safe space might be the Black Students Club. Certainly you can imagine that different black students would have different opinions on the best way to combat police violence, whether school vouchers help or hurt students in bad schools, whether the use of the n word in rap is appropriate or inappropriate, whether that white girl wearing dreadlocks is offensive or not, whether the US owes reparations to slave descendants, how much “thumb on the scale” should be given to black students in elite college admissions. There is not one single POV on these topics. Reasonable people can have reasonable debates on these topics and express different points of view. UC is saying the space will be safe insofar as no one is going to burn a cross on your lawn, but we aren’t going to shield you from the existence of differing viewpoints.
@Pizzagirl Except U of Chicago advertises they give out faculty special stickers to put in their classrooms to indicate that it isn’t going to be an unwelcoming non safe or non-affirming environment **- telling someone I don’t believe you should have the same civil rights that I have isn’t welcoming.or affirming…
-again from U chicago website https://lgbtq.uchicago.edu/page/safe-space
“Safe Space creates welcoming physical spaces on campus where LGBTQ students can have a conversation with students, staff and faculty knowing that they have a basic understanding of the challenges these students face in developing their identities. The visibility of the signs on the doors and in the offices of individuals who have participated in the trainings serves to increase the overall visibility of the ally community on campus, creating a welcoming environment for LGBTQ students. The presence of these signs indicates that the University is committed to supporting the LGBTQ community. Finally, the decals also serve to increase the number of LGBTQ students at an institution. Many prospective students look for the presence for a program like Safe Space to help them determine if an institution is welcoming of LGBTQ students. Having this program will help in recruiting these students and increasing diversity at the University.”
“participants receive a Safe Space decal to display in their work or living space, and will have the opportunity to be listed on the LGBTQ Student Life website as an ally to the LGBTQ community. By displaying the Safe Space decal, allies are able to identify themselves as welcoming, safe, educated trained, and aware people, and pledge to promote a safe and affirming space for LGBTQ people by offering an atmosphere of respect, fairness, and trust. Allies will also be provided with programs and additional educational opportunities that will further their development as allies.”
Not necessarily(provided it’s a student-driven rather than parent-driven choice) as the prevailing conventional wisdom among some on this thread is the premise college students need to have their ideas challenged seemingly on the assumption that they have not been so challenged before undergrad.
That’s not always the case.
Take the case of say…religious fundamentalist conservatives who grew up attending public school or a secular oriented private day/boarding school where most students do not share the same religious/conservative backgrounds or the opposite case, a liberal/progressive feminist/atheist/LGBTQ student who grew up in a region with a dominant majority of staunch conservatives who are deeply religious and strongly oppose anyone/anything different from their “traditional worldview”.
With such students, they’ve already received a lifetime of challenges to their own beliefs from the dominant majority in their regions/hometowns/schools while growing up.
For such students, I don’t see anything wrong with them opting to attend a college where the majority/critical mass of the student body has beliefs/ideas similar to their own for ~4 years.
They can always spend the rest of their lives being challenged by the dominant majority in their locality/hometown if that’s what they choose.
They can also exercise their right to move to areas where there are more people like them after graduation like some HS classmates did by attending some conservative/religious colleges and later, moving to regions where their beliefs are more in the majority or conversely, LGBT/atheist/feminist college classmates who came from regions with a dominant staunch conservative religious fundamentalist majority who decided to attend my radical lefty LAC…and later decided to move to regions where there are a greater critical mass of those sharing orientation/beliefs and/or ones where people are far less likely to subject them to a barrage of criticism, social ostracism, bullying, etc than in their hometowns/regions.
PG: In both examples you give, the students who are part of the safe space are setting an agenda for discussion. Someone outside the group is not.
Fair enough @NickFlynn, you did not call anyone a bigot, and I should have left off the last sentence. But that aside, are you now saying that your argument is something other than either ignoring the incidents I and other continually raise or dismissing them as anecdata? Seems to me you keep arguing that no one will tell you what the problem is with safe spaces and trigger warnings, and then dismissing whatever anyone says in response out of hand. To wit, look at your post #858. And you accuse others of moving goal posts? Don’t find that terribly effective, sorry.
@runswimyoga, if either of my kids were subjected to gang beatings or forced to watch a video put out by the Westboro Baptist Church (assuming they actually produce any) in school it would have been in the paper and someone’s head would have been on my mantle, because I would have brought the holy fire. Pretty sure every other person I know personally would have done the same thing.
@Ohiodad51 is correct that UC is not going to shut down LGBTQ+ clubs or any clubs, whether they are defined as safe spaces or not. Clubs are allowed for Wiccans, Evangelical Christians, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice…
The question might be when a club wants to bring a speaker to campus. Imagine any elite school inviting an advocate for LGBTQ+ or atheism or abortion rights to school, and some group at school protests. Would the protetsers be derided as bigots? Yes, rightly so, and the speaker would of course not be dis-invited.
Now envision an anti-abortion proponent or a retired general invited by a club. Now the protests are, ‘we cannot have her speak, she’s against women’s rights,’ or ‘our college should not promote militarism.’ Would those speakers have the same guarantees to actually appear and not be shouted down? I doubt it.
I am a resident of NC, infamous for its obscene HB-2 law, which is about more than just transgender bathrooms, it’s about the right to sue for discrimination. I am certainly voting for the Democrat this November to unseat our Republican governor. And we have 3 daughters and my wife and I are fervently pro-choice. But that does not blind me to the discrepancy I see and read about concerning intellectual expression at our elite colleges.
@Pizzagirl #865 #866
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. These hypotheticals you are spinning up in the last two posts bear no relationship to any actual implementation of safe spaces I have ever seen or heard of. I’ve never even heard any safe space advocate ever use the term “intellectual safe spaces” - the only people I’ve ever even heard put those words together were people criticizing safe spaces.
Obviously, I haven’t been everywhere, seen everything nor read everything ever written on the topic - I’ll concede that maybe this is something outside my experience that really exists, but I think I’m going to need some evidence beyond your hypotheticals.
Why was this particular terminology not used by Dean Ellison, given that this is an area where he is assumed to have a vast amount of expertise? Why did he not draw the same distinction you are attempting to make here? Does the U of C not value the use of precise language anymore?
- if either of my kids were subjected to gang beatings or forced to watch a video put out by the Westboro Baptist Church (assuming they actually produce any) in school it would have been …*
FYI
I just googled the Westboro Baptist Church home page. There is a list of videos. I did not open any, because I am worried what the links might do to my computer. I didn’t even like to click on their home page.
@PetulaClark, most elite colleges have never disinvited anybody over the last 15 years.
There are religious schools or organizations at religious schools who have disinvited pro choice speakers.
I am puzzled by what a “safe space” sticker on the door of a college classroom accomplishes. What is the consequence if somebody in the classroom violates that space? What constitutes a violation of the space? Is there a meaningful difference in a classroom displaying a sticker that one not displaying a sticker? Will students seeking safe spaces only sign up for classes taught by professors who display the sticker? If a professor doesn’t display the sticker, is this to be interpreted as meaning that professor will not observe common decency and sensitivity in his/her class?
Yeah, I gotta say this WBC video doesn’t pass the sniff test. Like I’m supposed to believe a bunch of parents knew their kids watched a WBC video (not just a snippet in discussing free speech, but 45 min worth) and they all shrugged? And itI’m not buying it.
I have never seen a safe space sticker on a classroom (although like Nick Flynn I haven’t been everywhere and seen everything) but on the office doors of faculty. I have been aware of students taking the opportunity of that safe space to come out to their professors and discuss how their orientation may impact their college experiences. Or post college plans and experiences.
an example: A student wants to go to graduate school. The student wants to know which particular graduate programs, in their field, will be most welcoming. This is a question that could be explored in a safe space with a professor who is knowledgeable about the field.
Putting aside the letter and the terms “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” do we all agree that newspapers shouldn’t be defunded if their editorial board writes something that certain students disagree with? Do we all agree that students shouldn’t be able to control the costumes that others wear? Do we all agree that students shouldn’t be able to remove certain books from a literature course because it triggers them (not saying the student shouldn’t be able to ask for a personal accommodation not to read a particular book herself or participate in a class discussion? I’m trying to understand how much of this discussion is about labels and how much is about drawing first amendment free speech lines because it’s not clear to me.
I can not understand how any public school could get away with the conduct that was described. Obviously, a school can’t preemptively control students, but in today’s world what school hosts a speaker spouting conversion therapy? If that happened in any of the schools that my kids have attended, the students would have been up in arms, let alone the parents. That’s not an issue of triggers and safe spaces, but an issue of firing administrators and voting out school board members.
@dstark I am glad that ‘most’ have not. Here’s a few links about hundreds of dis-invites, from all spectrums. (Sorry, i have not had the time to read through them all):
http://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-disinvited-speakers-at-colleges-2016-7
http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/28/speaker-disinvited-from-college-event-af
https://www.thefire.org/list-of-campus-disinvitations-2000-2014/
Well…@PetulaClark, I kind of have a rule now. You post a link, you read the link. Somebody posted a 400 page link during a discussion. She hadn’t read it. 
I read the FIRE link. Why don’t you work your way through the 300 disinvitations? I did that already.
In an effort to be helpful to those joining in the middle of a long thread:
dstark posted upthread about what he learned reading through the FIRE link.
imho: to understand what is going on on college campuses, we will have to get beyond the headlines. Also, it’s helpful to listen to folks actually spending their time on campuses. fwiw.
Of course the most delicious irony is easy to unpeel:
- "Trigger warnings" start to draw journalistic attention. Articles focus on the most ridiculous and extreme of student hyperbole and extrapolation.
- People start to get mad at students, thinking to themselves "what right do they have to find comfort and support when I and their other predecessors got none?" In a notable absence of empathy, people's sympathies turn against marginalized people and towards institutions.
- The backlash starts, and--here's the tasty morsel--it hinges on the most extreme hyperbole (free speech is threatened!) and extrapolation (what if everything is a trigger?)
Wash, rinse, repeat.
I stand with the students. They’ve discovered they have some power and agency and they’re not giving it back no matter how many erstwhile progressives side with the right on this one.
@pittsburghscribe #878
I’ll take a swing at a couple of these.
- Students upset about newspaper editorial
- The proper response here is to grant the opposing students space in the paper to rebut the editorial.
Slightly more problematic situation - editorials are repeatedly and deliberately targeted at certain groups on campus. Let’s imagine some Milo fan takes control of a campus paper.
- I think in this case, the administration needs to intervene, warnings should be issued, ground rules laid down, and if necessary because problems persist, editors replaced.
-
Kids should be able whatever dumb offensive Halloween costumes they want.
However, the administration is not out of line if they suggest that perhaps they ought to consider the feelings of others and try not to be massive jerks about it. -
Students should not be able to remove a particular book from the curriculum.
However, they are well within their rights to get a group together, assemble an argument and petition a faculty member to make a change. The faculty is under no obligation to accept the suggestion.