5 ms·
I think the complaint is not about safe spaces as something that people can opt into if they prefer, but the idea that an entire university should be such a "sa
by zerocrates 12y ago
I think the complaint is not about safe spaces as something that people can opt into if they prefer, but the idea that an entire university should be such a "safe space."
The bulk of the specific complaints are about things like free speech zones, censorship, or banning, disinviting, or attacking speakers. These are all basically methods to provide intellectual "safety" to everybody regardless of whether they've asked for it, and I don't think they're really comparable with more limited (what I would think of as "traditional") safe spaces.
Edit: The Judith Shulevitz New York Times opinion piece linked early on (which made the rounds a few weeks ago) is clearly an inspiration of this post, and Shulevitz does a much better job of actually engaging with the "normal" definition of a safe space, its earlier history, and the expansion the article decries.
"In most cases, safe spaces are innocuous gatherings of like-minded people who agree to refrain from ridicule, criticism or what they term microaggressions — subtle displays of racial or sexual bias — so that everyone can relax enough to explore the nuances of, say, a fluid gender identity. As long as all parties consent to such restrictions, these little islands of self-restraint seem like a perfectly fine idea.
But the notion that ticklish conversations must be scrubbed clean of controversy has a way of leaking out and spreading. Once you designate some spaces as safe, you imply that the rest are unsafe. It follows that they should be made safer."
- tomlock 12y agoI'm finding Judith's article much better written. Looking at the response the students had to the "dangerous space" flier, seems to typify free speech. Why shouldn't they ask the university to condemn the flier? But the article is very slippery-slope, and mostly doesn't criticize safe spaces directly, just what the author sees as their side effects.
- zerocrates 12y agoI'd agree that both Shulevitz's piece and this one are flawed. They both offer some interesting anecdotes but don't do a great job of criticism (or even, you could argue, identifying what's being criticized). Instead, both are to some extent willing to leave things at "look at the what the wacky Millenials (substitute "leftists", "feminists", "statists" as needed) are up to!" Part of the problem, I suspect, is the messy intersection with politics and identity in this area. It's tough to come across criticism that doesn't devolve into political posturing, and even thoughtful discussion is easily dismissed as it often comes from "the other side."
- tomlock 12y agoI'd actively encourage everyone to listen to "the other side" regardless of what side they are on. I see the popehat article as guilty of not doing that, but similarly I think dismissing popehat entirely as a result of this article is a mistake for "my side" because the same thing will happen when we criticize it. We won't have understood the full picture, so we'll use the wrong words and make mistakes. I feel like this is true in many domains.
- candu 12y agoSince this comment thread has risen to the top, here's the link to the Shulevitz op-ed again: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shul...