The dangers of safe space
On Tuesday the Coalition Against ROTC at Columbia bemoaned a lack of “safe space” for its side of the debate. (Of course, shouting “racist” doesn’t exactly make a space safe either.)
I find this whining for and expectation of safe space disappointing and profoundly worrying.
The concept of “safe space” is well intentioned, even admirable, but it is not without major ideological problems (an obvious one being: What does the term even mean?). One problem is inherent in the concept itself, for it is ultimately a system of delineation that works not to dissolve but entrench conflict. To demarcate a space as “safe” is to assert that all other space is “unsafe.” An example is the LGBTQ/alphabet soup/insert-politically-correct-label-of-the-moment-here posters that Columbia students hang on their windows and doors declaring “safe space” for the full spectrum of sex, sexuality, and gender. But if I don’t hang one of those posters, does that mean my space isn’t “safe”?
We so fervently seek to carve out these so-called “safe spaces” as bastions of liberal hope on an otherwise hostile campus. Instead, we should envision and maintain a campus culture in which all of campus is “safe space,” thus rendering such delineations obsolete. We draw lines and distinctions to facilitate understanding and bring issues to the fore, but we should do so with the intention of transience. For if after we’ve reached better understanding, we don’t move swiftly, responsibly, and decisively to dissolve those demarcations, in the long term all you end up with is ever-polarizing barriers. The walls of the divide build higher, and pretty soon we find ourselves hanging barbed wire, staffing armed guards, and even, God forbid, tossing cows.
A second problem is even more pressing. In much of the world outside the College Sphere, safe space is the exception to the rule. Our collegiate space is remarkably open and safe for all manner of discussions; in fact, such discussion, as it is in the classroom, is often required. But we must learn to be able to speak and stand up for our beliefs when there isn’t even the space to do so, to be brave, responsible, and well equipped for speaking and acting outside of “safe space,” where no one is listening, where it is dangerous and may incur cost. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, read a newspaper. Especially the section on the Middle East.)
I do not wish to completely demur the value of creating safe spaces. Safe space has its place. But if our actions and beliefs, and our ability to act on those beliefs, are dependent on safe spaces and limited to their confines, we are deluding ourselves at the expense of welfare of the world.
Caroline Blosser is a Spectrum opinion blogger. She likes to be cheeky. She is also a ninja.
Great post; agree with this 100%.
post!
Try to make out with another guy at Pike, or in Ferris Booth even, and see how friendly and hospitable the wonderful world of Columbia is.
Safe spaces exist for a reason, and that reason is, among other things, to indicate the (overwhelming) presence of unsafe spaces. And the fact that people respect your opinions in the classroom is in no way correlated to what happens before and after classes.
If you’re making out in Ferris Booth, I’ma give you a nasty look. Don’t care if it’s a dude or a lady you’re making out with, I don’t want to see it.
I agree 100% with you Roko, and to clarify, the idea of safe space meant that the ideas expressed by the anti-ROTC members weren’t being fairly heard and judged. It was not about a space safe from disagreement, but a space where both sides were equally judged. In particular, the comment was in response to the overwhelmingly negative response to the overblown reports of heckling on and off campus, the fact that the opening remarks at the 2nd town hall were given by someone in support of ROTC, and the idea that many people hold that being Anti-ROTC is being anti-American.
You seem to at once argue that we are “whining” when asking for safe spaces, but then say that everywhere needs to be a safe space. What exactly is your main point? I agree that we should not be spoon-fed here, and should have the courage to stand up and courageously express our views. It is not as if the lack of safe space caused the Anti-ROTC group to back down. They just stated that the deck was stacked against them.
Also, I think it’s arrogant to say that safe spaces have no use. I work at an elementary school close to campus, and watched a presentation given by a gay rights group to 4th graders. It was remarkable to hear these kids respond to the ideas of safe spaces and just simple respect. Unfortunately, not everyone is given that early foundation in respecting others, and ridicule, mock, and hurt those who are different. There are people who do not feel safe on campus, and an outward sign of support goes a long way to easing that feeling, even if it is just a symbol.
Seriously, was anyone in the town hall meetings who vocalized an opposition to ROTC called a racist or booed? Or, as you put it, called out as anti-American? Maybe in the media, maybe outside the town hall meeting, but that doesn’t qualify as a safe space, now does it? And were the town hall meetings not an open forum for both sides of the debate? And were they not, in fact, based on the proportion of speakers heavily slanted toward the anti-ROTC opinion? And, again, and most importantly: when and where during the town hall meetings were people who voiced opposition to ROTC called anti-American or unpatriotic or booed or heckled? When was it NOT a safe space for those people? The only person who was heckled was pro-ROTC. I have to say that as a Columbia graduate, the hypocritical victim BS that is coming out because of the ROTC debate is embarrassing.
you might get dirty looks because it’s different. Most people don’t make out in public, and most people don’t make with people of the same gender. If you do things that aren’t normal, then obviously people aren’t going to be okay with it. But running to hide in a “Safe space” isn’t going to solve the problem of people thinking it’s weird. All that is going to do is create resentment for special treatment.
Just do what you need to do, and live with the consequences.
There are so many things wrong with this article, and it would take at least two opeds to appropriately respond. That said, I have to comment on your drive-by against the pink poster campaign. Even at Columbia, there are LGBTQ people who are rightfully scarred about expressing their identities. Every day, we experience homophobia and transphobia at Columbia and in the City of New York. Just because you don’t take the time to see it doesn’t mean that it’s not there. Personally, the posters help make me feel just a little bit safer and happier as I move through campus and visit students’ rooms/suites. And what’s wrong with that? Do you feel uncomfortable with positive affirmation? If so, then that’s a shame, because we should always be giving positive affirmation of who people are. Do you feel like people are making assumptions about you because you don’t have a poster up? If so, I don’t understand why, as most windows do not have posters, and I know that me and most of my friends do not automatically assume that those people are homophobes.
It might be interesting to make a comparative analysis of the behavior of national congresses in different democratic countries. It will be surprising to find that civil behavior isn’t always the rule, as it should be.
Earlier this year, a spate of suicides served as tragic reminders of the toll homophobia can take on those without safe spaces. Columbia has not been without incidents of homophobic bias, as minor as they may seem in comparison to these recent tragedies. It is a sad fact that not all spaces on campus can be assumed to be safe ones for queer students.
No one claims that these instances should define how we view the Columbia community. But they demonstrate the importance of the explicit establishment of places that embrace queer students and their allies.
By no means do I suggest that a pink piece of paper automatically makes a room safe, nor do I suppose that a room cannot be safe without one. But it is important to provide students with a way to actively demonstrate their commitment to the support of Columbia’s queer community, and delineate spaces that embrace all expressions of sexual and gender identity, use inclusive language, work to combat heteronormativity, and do not tolerate harassment, discrimination, or aggression.
Let us not forget that not all students are at a point of comfort with their sexuality or gender identities. I hope they will see scores of pink windows when they walk around campus and feel assured that there are people here who love and support them.
The risk of “safe space” has been exemplified in the ROTC debate. Anti-ROTC activists have used the safe space concept to justify exclusion of ROTC from Columbia on the grounds that ROTC would somehow make the campus unsafe for group X. However, ROTC cadre and students would be expected to follow Columbia’s norms of behavior. Anti-ROTC activists are using the concept of safe space not to protect anyone from harm, but instead to inflict harm by attacking something they oppose.
It is disturbing that such a vague term can be used as an effective weapon to attack whatever entity they disagree with. When they started claiming the ROTC discourse, which has taken place in exceptionally controlled settings, is unsafe because the content is disagreeable to them, it became clear that their concept of safe space – whatever noble idea it started as – has warped into something antithetical to the purpose and mission of Columbia.
rotc is already on campus! an official detachment here would hardly change the ‘safety’ of the space– except for those in rotc who will be unfairly judged and labeled discriminatory warmongers.
pro-rotc commenter talking about ‘vague terms’.
“ameliorate the army”
“enrich the soldier’s experience”
“improve the community”
who’s vague now?
I think this post hits an important point. I’m gay, and I’ve always been very against the idea of a “safe space.” In my experience, a safe space is just a place where the same ideas are thrown around in a discussion, which leads to nothing but the furthering of one-sided, unrealistic ideas that are grounded only in such a self-affirming space.
I, for one, am always aggravated when I sit in one of those “sit in a circle and reveal your soul to complete strangers for the next 10 minutes” groups, and they always define it a “safe space” before starting. Such things can happen in “actual” spaces, too. In fact, reality does.
“Safe space” is a thoroughly anti-intellectual application and chills the flow and exchange of ideas at Columbia.
I think her editorial is unnecessarily hostile, especially in reference to anti-ROTC advocates and the pink posters. It’s ironic that for a post advocating for a more open dialogue, she would be so vitriolic in her criticism.
The idea of “safe space” has its value in a particular context, i.e. mainly those of a support group, but it can not become and, I think, is not the dominant form of discussion on campus. I agree that groups that focus only on providing safe spaces have less productive and open discussion. ROOTed, in particular, comes to mind, as an actually exclusionary space of unpopular/conservative ideas.
The idea of a “safe space” is valuable not only in the form of a support group, but also in the context of discussing academic ideas. The primary ideas of a safe space include assuming that discussion participants are: coming from a place of goodwill (that they’re not meaning to offend or attack anyone else in the space), addressing ideas and not individuals, respecting other participants (by not interrupting or monopolizing conversation), and willing to engage with others arguments and proposals (even if it means questioning some of their own assumptions), among other things. The only aspect of a safe space that I can think of that might not always lend itself to academic discussion is that usually participants are asked to keep the conversations within the space confidential. That’s why they’re frequently used in groups discussing sensitive issues with which all participants might not be fully comfortable sharing their personal experiences.
Excellent response. With this definition, a better editorial would advocate for the expansion of “safe space,” to the extent that perhaps the term would become unuseful, rather than an elimination of “safe space” altogether.
Everything you listed as a characteristic of a safe space happens without having to label something a “safe space.” — What you described is the purpose of a university.
I mean honestly, do we really need “safe spaces” to discuss academic ideas? I would absolutely hope not.
Oh, sorry, and “demur” is not a transitive verb. Editing is a beautiful thing.
I don’t disagree with the idea of “safe spaces” in certain areas of campus for students who need counseling or support. What I think is damaging is when the campus as a whole is expected to conform to the dictates of a “safe space,” and certain views are excluded to achieve this comforting effect.
Yes, civility and respect are important. But the point of college isn’t to feel empowered, complimented, or otherwise “supported.” It’s much more stimulating to study in an institution where I will be challenged and contradicted, whether on the morality of America, abortion, or homosexuality. Columbia would be worthless if our conversations were so bland that nobody was offended. (Especially considering the heightening standards for what causes offense.)
You’re missing the point of safe spaces. It’s not about having your ideas affirmed. It’s about having your right to voice your ideas heard, regardless of how crazy they may sound on the surface, or regardless of how people view your identity. You’re views on morality of America, abortion, or homosexuality can be debated and contested in a safe space, but only the ideas and arguments, not you as a person.
oh the many hypocrisies embedded in safe space dialogues. concept is fine, but in practice it just often turns out to be a politically-correct-space where people rarely disagree.
It is not acceptable to make out with anyone at Ferris.
I would be offended by this article if it weren’t so completely pointless and nonsensical.
Caroline, when you’re writing posts on topics this sensitive, it would really be considerate to change your rather facetious bio. It makes me question your judgment, and more importantly your seriousness.
the fact that her being a ninja is offensive is beyond me. great article.
I agree with roko for the most part. A huge thing that safe spaces do is to raise awareness of UNsafe spaces. Then maybe we can “maintain a campus culture in which all of campus is ‘safe space.’” You can’t just jump to that. It’s going to take a while to get there. Intermediate steps are necessary.
I totally agree with this article. Safe-space politics have gone way too far. Last night I was thrown-out of a church under the guise of safe-space..
http://genuinewitty.com/2012/05/11/how-i-occupied-torontos-church-of-the-holy-trinity-or-bullied-at-the-pulpit/