4 ms·

I admit I don't understand the protesting against safe spaces. My university is probably one of the largest of my state and we have a safe space called the "wel

I admit I don't understand the protesting against safe spaces. My university is probably one of the largest of my state and we have a safe space called the "wellness office". It gives out free tea, lip balm, hand sanitizer, and fruits. In the evenings it lets specific people from the LGBTQA+ spectrum come and talk about things. E.g. "Bisexual and pan sexualities" or "Queer men" or "LGBTQ People of color" would all have their own weekly schedule to meet. I've actually been to a few to see what exactly is going on and what I found was that those meetings tended to talk about issues that are very specific to those groups and therefore there couldn't be much in the way of discussion for people not in those groups. It's not too dissimilar from a meetup of people who want to discuss specific algorithmic proofs in that it's a "safe space" for people in that field and in that education and the quality of conversation would be less productive for the people there if someone not in that field or education arrived and joined in with a bunch of confusion or lack of education about what algorithms are. I really am confused because I've yet to encounter a "safe space" in which I felt that there was a plan to censor people or order people that they can't say certain things. Meetings hosted by the "safe space" at my university have come off to me as a space to intellectually discuss topics more or less pertaining to a demographic who would otherwise not have as productive a conversation if they had to explain what sexuality is. I've also experienced similar environments in editor's meetups in literature and research groups in STEM. Could you provide me with a study or article regarding how the existence of an isolated space for the discussion of topics is wrong or bad? I don't mean to attack you or say that "safe spaces" are a good thing. I just don't see the difference between "safe spaces" for minorities differs from spaces of intellectual discussion in STEM.

sremani 10y ago
In a meet-up I can actually call out the BS of the presenter or at least thoroughly ask honest questions. In a safe space, even if my question is honest and to the point, its validity is determined by the state of mind of the responder. So, that is there. The concept of safe space is nothing new, people usually call it home or club. But to impose safe space in the center of town square is the problem. edit: also safe spaces promote acceptance of dogma over free thinking, which Universities claim to be centers of.
- SolaceQuantum 10y ago
  Interestingly enough at the safe space I went to, there was heavy discussion over whether BDSM should be allowed to be considered an alternative sexuality comparable to homo/bi/pansexuality. There was heavy disagreement and productive debate over this topic in a "safe space" for bi/pansexuals at the university. I don't understand how there was dogma over free thinking in this context. I keep trying to understand where my experiences with things labeled "safe space" align with a rather big voice on the internet and within my peers that "safe space" meetups are somehow oppressive or regressive to ideals and communication. I wouldn't be offended that there exists literary workshops that I cannot attend or that there are physics conferences I wouldn't be welcome in because I know nothing of physics. Could you suggest a "safe space" for me to enter and observe for myself that would better align with this issue? I understand there aren't any serious surveys or academic study listing experiences of "safe space" and their repercussions so I've been trying to seek out and gather my own data.
- 467568985476 10y ago
  Have you ever been to a safe space and tried to participate in discussion? I think the grandparent comment is spot on. Honest questions in good faith are honored, even when they come from ignorance. What's not honored is people looking for a debate that involves "calling out BS". It's not the safe space's responsibility to educate you on social issues. The whole point is to exclude people who deliberately lack context and understanding so that the discussion can be had on more complex topics. Also, as a straight, white person myself, I understand that there are some discussions where my opinions are irrelevant and unwanted because I simply haven't experienced what others have and am unable to understand and empathize as intimately. Excluding my opinion isn't a slight against free thinking, it's a shortcut because I have nothing to contribute.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    "The whole point is to exclude people" That's pretty much it. Also to actualize through the echo chamber.
    - 10y ago
amluto 10y ago
I admit I haven't tried to research the "safe spaces" issue very much, but my very, very general understanding is that there quite a few different understandings of what a safe space is. Some people want their classrooms to be safe spaces in the sense that they'll be warned in advance and possibly allowed to opt out if certain uncomfortable things are discussed. This can become very awkward for professors who are teaching topics (think civil rights history, civil rights law, topics related to abuse or sex crimes, etc) that may be uncomfortable to some students. In some sense, it's a bit like "political correctness". I doubt that the people who rail against political correctness and the people who encourage political correctness are talking about exactly the same thing.
- SolaceQuantum 10y ago
  Oh I see. I can understand that if a student is disrupting a class saying its too upsetting, there might be some issue with that. I've been to classes where a fundamentalist christian held up an entire lecture because he didn't agree with evolution (in a class called "evolutionary biology"). Is that a similar disruption happening in civil rights history/law classes?
  - amluto 10y ago
    I haven't specifically heard of that kind of overt disruption (which is not to say it doesn't exist). I do, however, know some professors who are currently nervous about teaching certain topics, even though those topics are fairly fundamental to their curricula.
- GauntletWizard 10y ago
  They often are, but talk past each other, in what's known as a Motte and Bailey[1][2]. A mens rights group doesn't want to ban all women from holding positions of power, just the incapable ones. Who's a capable woman? Well, they haven't found one, but if they did they'd surely let her into their club. Their core argument sounds like it might meet you halfway, but they never do. Variants along this argument come up all the time. It's pretty much the entirety of political speechwriting; Even Trump's most outlandish statements are forms of it. He'll proclaim to ban all muslims, back up to 'well, just enhanced screening', but darned if it's not going to be racist anyway. But on the opposite side, nearly every gun control argument ends up this way, with someone asking that just 'assault weapons' with 'no sports shooting value' be banned, and then their list of assault weapons is based on whatever the most common rifle is at the time. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle [2]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch#Motte_and_bailey http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch#Motte_and_baile...
danharaj 10y ago
The controversy seems to have been sparked because some students want more control over the content covered in their classrooms with a particular emphasis on triggering content. This is a distinct but related issue. There is also the not new issue of students protesting speakers they think have objectionable views worth protesting on campus. This bothers some free speech advocates even though it is an expression of free speech. Something something totalitarianism, slippery slope, etc. I find it an overreaction from the right. In my personal opinion, speech is free when it is free to be in conflict. So really there are very many issues developing right now on college campuses and they are all conflated together because the point is to have an enemy to hate ("SJW's" or "the regressive left"). So diverse issues and points of views are agglomerated into one ball of evil to hate. Some people refuse to allow college students, barely adults, to be wrong or misguided and learn from their mistakes. Also those same people like to pretend college students have immense power to censor speech at a scale that threatens what they find good in society. There's also a certain zealotry in defense of the status quo which is probably older than history itself.
- mcphage 10y ago
  > There is also the not new issue of students protesting speakers they think have objectionable views worth protesting on campus. This bothers some free speech advocates even though it is an expression of free speech. Citing free speech, to protest someone exercising their free speech, is... I dunno, there seems something backwards there. Someone is missing the point, at any rate.
jhanschoo 10y ago
This is not a study, but provides an example of "safe space liberalism" gone too far in a university. In here, students heckle the speakers trying to introduce dissenting opinions on that "safe space liberalism". It's 1.5 hrs long, but you might want to begin at the 2 min 45 sec mark to see the worst of the heckling begin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCcp36n2cDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCcp36n2cDg
partiallypro 10y ago
Your topic is broad; but as a precursor, I have a bias, in that I'm a free speech absolutist. There's a difference between having a meet-up or speech on campus on specialized topics and blocking all dissenting opinions because of feelings (not logic mind you.) Well before "safe spaces" were a thing, when I was in school, I could go to speeches that had minority opinions...no one ever disrespected the speakers; even if we had topic of disagreeing. I went to a viewing of a trans documentary, there was no "safe space," there was a good discussion afterwards. There was no need for a "safe space," because we were all adults, we aren't children. What you are essentially describing is a forum about specific topics. That's not a "safe space," it may have been one but that's not quite an accurate representation. One example of a "safe space" gone wrong has been the banning of certain speakers (that were already booked) from speaking on campus, because it violated student's "safe space." This has happened to a number of people, including Bill Maher and Condoleezza Rice. If you can't listen to the views of those you disagree with, you are not going to be a tolerant person. It encourages uniformity of ideas, the opposite of what academic inquiry should be about. Then, we have things like "free speech zones" on campus, designated areas on campus where you are allowed to speak freely, displaying free speech on other part of campus can get you expelled. (read more about these on thefire.org.) Anyhow, here's an op-ed from Michael Bloomberg and Charles Koch (not example bed fellows) http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-speech-matters-on-campus-1463093280 http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-speech-matters-on-campu... I do really encourage you to read the thefire.org, campus practices on free speech are often awful. You can look up your own school on their site and view their score on free speech.

sremani 10y ago

In a meet-up I can actually call out the BS of the presenter or at least thoroughly ask honest questions. In a safe space, even if my question is honest and to the point, its validity is determined by the state of mind of the responder. So, that is there. The concept of safe space is nothing new, people usually call it home or club. But to impose safe space in the center of town square is the problem. edit: also safe spaces promote acceptance of dogma over free thinking, which Universities claim to be centers of.

SolaceQuantum 10y ago
Interestingly enough at the safe space I went to, there was heavy discussion over whether BDSM should be allowed to be considered an alternative sexuality comparable to homo/bi/pansexuality. There was heavy disagreement and productive debate over this topic in a "safe space" for bi/pansexuals at the university. I don't understand how there was dogma over free thinking in this context. I keep trying to understand where my experiences with things labeled "safe space" align with a rather big voice on the internet and within my peers that "safe space" meetups are somehow oppressive or regressive to ideals and communication. I wouldn't be offended that there exists literary workshops that I cannot attend or that there are physics conferences I wouldn't be welcome in because I know nothing of physics. Could you suggest a "safe space" for me to enter and observe for myself that would better align with this issue? I understand there aren't any serious surveys or academic study listing experiences of "safe space" and their repercussions so I've been trying to seek out and gather my own data.
467568985476 10y ago
Have you ever been to a safe space and tried to participate in discussion? I think the grandparent comment is spot on. Honest questions in good faith are honored, even when they come from ignorance. What's not honored is people looking for a debate that involves "calling out BS". It's not the safe space's responsibility to educate you on social issues. The whole point is to exclude people who deliberately lack context and understanding so that the discussion can be had on more complex topics. Also, as a straight, white person myself, I understand that there are some discussions where my opinions are irrelevant and unwanted because I simply haven't experienced what others have and am unable to understand and empathize as intimately. Excluding my opinion isn't a slight against free thinking, it's a shortcut because I have nothing to contribute.
- themartorana 10y ago
  "The whole point is to exclude people" That's pretty much it. Also to actualize through the echo chamber.
  - 10y ago

amluto 10y ago

I admit I haven't tried to research the "safe spaces" issue very much, but my very, very general understanding is that there quite a few different understandings of what a safe space is. Some people want their classrooms to be safe spaces in the sense that they'll be warned in advance and possibly allowed to opt out if certain uncomfortable things are discussed. This can become very awkward for professors who are teaching topics (think civil rights history, civil rights law, topics related to abuse or sex crimes, etc) that may be uncomfortable to some students. In some sense, it's a bit like "political correctness". I doubt that the people who rail against political correctness and the people who encourage political correctness are talking about exactly the same thing.

SolaceQuantum 10y ago
Oh I see. I can understand that if a student is disrupting a class saying its too upsetting, there might be some issue with that. I've been to classes where a fundamentalist christian held up an entire lecture because he didn't agree with evolution (in a class called "evolutionary biology"). Is that a similar disruption happening in civil rights history/law classes?
- amluto 10y ago
  I haven't specifically heard of that kind of overt disruption (which is not to say it doesn't exist). I do, however, know some professors who are currently nervous about teaching certain topics, even though those topics are fairly fundamental to their curricula.
GauntletWizard 10y ago
They often are, but talk past each other, in what's known as a Motte and Bailey[1][2]. A mens rights group doesn't want to ban all women from holding positions of power, just the incapable ones. Who's a capable woman? Well, they haven't found one, but if they did they'd surely let her into their club. Their core argument sounds like it might meet you halfway, but they never do. Variants along this argument come up all the time. It's pretty much the entirety of political speechwriting; Even Trump's most outlandish statements are forms of it. He'll proclaim to ban all muslims, back up to 'well, just enhanced screening', but darned if it's not going to be racist anyway. But on the opposite side, nearly every gun control argument ends up this way, with someone asking that just 'assault weapons' with 'no sports shooting value' be banned, and then their list of assault weapons is based on whatever the most common rifle is at the time. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle [2]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch#Motte_and_bailey http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch#Motte_and_baile...

danharaj 10y ago

The controversy seems to have been sparked because some students want more control over the content covered in their classrooms with a particular emphasis on triggering content. This is a distinct but related issue. There is also the not new issue of students protesting speakers they think have objectionable views worth protesting on campus. This bothers some free speech advocates even though it is an expression of free speech. Something something totalitarianism, slippery slope, etc. I find it an overreaction from the right. In my personal opinion, speech is free when it is free to be in conflict. So really there are very many issues developing right now on college campuses and they are all conflated together because the point is to have an enemy to hate ("SJW's" or "the regressive left"). So diverse issues and points of views are agglomerated into one ball of evil to hate. Some people refuse to allow college students, barely adults, to be wrong or misguided and learn from their mistakes. Also those same people like to pretend college students have immense power to censor speech at a scale that threatens what they find good in society. There's also a certain zealotry in defense of the status quo which is probably older than history itself.

mcphage 10y ago
> There is also the not new issue of students protesting speakers they think have objectionable views worth protesting on campus. This bothers some free speech advocates even though it is an expression of free speech. Citing free speech, to protest someone exercising their free speech, is... I dunno, there seems something backwards there. Someone is missing the point, at any rate.

jhanschoo 10y ago

This is not a study, but provides an example of "safe space liberalism" gone too far in a university. In here, students heckle the speakers trying to introduce dissenting opinions on that "safe space liberalism". It's 1.5 hrs long, but you might want to begin at the 2 min 45 sec mark to see the worst of the heckling begin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCcp36n2cDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCcp36n2cDg

partiallypro 10y ago

Your topic is broad; but as a precursor, I have a bias, in that I'm a free speech absolutist. There's a difference between having a meet-up or speech on campus on specialized topics and blocking all dissenting opinions because of feelings (not logic mind you.) Well before "safe spaces" were a thing, when I was in school, I could go to speeches that had minority opinions...no one ever disrespected the speakers; even if we had topic of disagreeing. I went to a viewing of a trans documentary, there was no "safe space," there was a good discussion afterwards. There was no need for a "safe space," because we were all adults, we aren't children. What you are essentially describing is a forum about specific topics. That's not a "safe space," it may have been one but that's not quite an accurate representation. One example of a "safe space" gone wrong has been the banning of certain speakers (that were already booked) from speaking on campus, because it violated student's "safe space." This has happened to a number of people, including Bill Maher and Condoleezza Rice. If you can't listen to the views of those you disagree with, you are not going to be a tolerant person. It encourages uniformity of ideas, the opposite of what academic inquiry should be about. Then, we have things like "free speech zones" on campus, designated areas on campus where you are allowed to speak freely, displaying free speech on other part of campus can get you expelled. (read more about these on thefire.org.) Anyhow, here's an op-ed from Michael Bloomberg and Charles Koch (not example bed fellows) http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-speech-matters-on-campus-1463093280 http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-speech-matters-on-campu... I do really encourage you to read the thefire.org, campus practices on free speech are often awful. You can look up your own school on their site and view their score on free speech.