No Safe Spaces: A Matter of Free Speech

So, I work at a college. In the last decade, I have seen the school adopt the "safe spaces" concept around campus. Many offices will display a purple triangle or rainbow flag sticker on their windows or doors to denote a safe space. And while safe spaces have been touted as places for all, there is a specific audience of LGBTQ+ that underlie the intent of safe spaces.

Like many things in our world, actions are sometimes taken to correct inaction or to correct prior mistakes. Much like affirmative action was enacted to correct educational disparities that separated black or other ethnic minority students from integration into predominantly white colleges and universities, the double edged sword was that it created a system of favoritism based on skin color over merit. Such a program may have some validity in immediate context of discrimination, but in its fullest context, it may have also inadvertently harmed some students.

I fear that the safe spaces paradigm might be another example of an attempted good, but it may be an over correction. The idea of safe spaces exists to allow students on the fringes to feel welcomed, accepted, and at ease... protected from stigmatization, and guided from drastic actions like self-harm and suicide. I get this and I think there is certainly merit in such an approach. But I think it also sells a false bill of goods that is divorced from reality -- a reality that those needing safe spaces might need to experience more, lest a false sense of entitlement and a fragile bubble be erected.

When I was in junior high school, way back in the 1980s, I had to take a class on self-esteem, which was meant to validate all people and lift kids' spirits so that they don't indulge in self-destructive behaviors like substance abuse, joining a gang, cutting or other self-harm, and suicide. The problem was that it didn't stop bullies or hurt feelings or suicide or self-harm or bad behavioral choices. We simply live in a world of strong wills and cruelty. That's not a pass for bullies, abusers, or any number of bad actors. But it is reality. 

Today I am a parent of two special needs boys. One child has severe ADHD and will likely be my extroverted problem child. The other has a physiological and neurological handicaps that will affect him physically and intellectually during his formative years. He will likely become the target of verbal abuse and perhaps physical bullying once he reaches adolescence. It's not right, but no matter how much schools, churches, and parents teach their children against such behavior, there is an animal base nature in humanity to weed out the weak and other people deemed less than capable in society. From an ethical, moral, and Christian perspective, this is abhorrent, but it is again, reality. I will do my best to protect my kids and it will likely mean instilling a protective posture with my youngest son in defense of my older boy, who has this sad disposition. I wish it wasn't so, but cruelty, meanness, and evil exists.

Do I want safe spaces for my kids? Sure, but will that actually benefit them or shield them from attacks? Probably not. I do believe that any school administrator or office needs to be a general safe place for counsel and corrective action, but I am skeptical of designated safe spaces in becoming places of uncritical protection and coddling. This is especially true in higher education, where the traditional role has been as a market place for ideas -- any and all ideas, which are then critiqued, measured, tried, and tested in the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Safe spaces are already showing a betrayal of this mission of colleges in shaping young adults into full-fledged grown men and women. 

Here's a case in point. Seven years ago, at Yale University, a professor was accosted and berated in the university square for perceived failure in providing safe spaces regarding Halloween costumes on campus that offended some students. Here's the video link:

LINK

In the clip a female student berates the professor for not creating a safe place or a place of comfort -- "a home" -- for students because he believes in intellectual and expressive (i.e. 1st Amendment) freedom. This defies the true mission of a college as an open learning environment that challenges students of all walks to critically approach knowledge and understanding for greater objectivity. It shuts down the market place of ideas, replacing it with systemic group think. The Yale professor began his defense in the video by saying that other people have rights in response to this student lauding a safety net for sensitive emotions. I fear what happens when this student graduates (presumably she has already) and finds that the world doesn't play so nice.

In another case, in 2020, a movement began at Stanford University to eliminate offensive language, and some people even want this codified into law for the nation. We are guaranteed in our Bill of Rights the freedom of speech and belief (1st Amendment), which is predicated on the idea of freedom of conscience, which I addressed in my last blog article as well. Nowhere is there a freedom from offense, because it is incompatible with the freedom of conscience, belief, and speech. I have seen this in action on my college's campus, where I work as a Safety Officer.

On one occasion, I had a history instructor bring me a copy of an academic journal article that someone posted on the bulletin board outside of her office that detailed how some Nazi holocaust survivors have capitalized on their experiences for monetary gain. In no way was this actually antisemitic, but this history instructor flipped her lid, since it followed an event  that hosted a speaking guest she invited to campus to discuss the holocaust, and this person was openly challenged as a potential grifter. The article's mission was not holocaust denial or anti-Jewish sentiment, but rather the character of some concentration camp survivors. Yet, this instructor was offended.

Another case I encountered was a flier that was posted in our dormitories that detailed an open event at a church regarding the efficacy and nature of homosexuality from two positions -- gay affirming and biblical traditionalism. While the event was at a church that opposed the ethics of homosexual activity, the event clearly involved members from both camps in a fair debate and discussion. Yet, a faculty member was offended that anyone could question homosexuality in this day and age. She called the flier hate speech, as did the history instructor regarding the article.

Lastly, some other students posted fliers that made a mocking caricature of our school's president. The flier even got to him and he thought it was fantastic and funny. Yet, a dean at the school took major offense at the flier as defaming the top official of the college. 

In each and every one of these cases, being offended has taken the role of greater importance on a college campus than has a defense of 1st Amendment rights. I am significantly worried, not that we are becoming a soft and cry-babyesque culture, which could be argued; rather, I am worried that real majoritarian tyranny will take over our culture beneath the subtle impression that we have a right to be free from offense over the right to be free to express. In reality, we have the right to offend if that offense flows from conscience. There are limits on such free speech, such as when the right violates another person's rights, including their freedom of life and liberty. But barring it stops another's free speech or harms the person's physical well being, offense will happen. Colleges should be places that people are given critical thinking skills to wade through the water and weeds of offense and disinformation. I am skeptical that safe spaces help in this regard.   

Blessings.