The problem with ‘The Problem with Safe Spaces’
So I was all excited to write a critical post on the College Republicans’ “The Problem with Safe Spaces” flier when I discovered that someone had beaten me to it. Sarah Ngu did a good job in dealing with the somewhat legitimate issues raised by CUCR, but purposely ignored the weaker arguments as they were presented on the flier. I thought I’d spend this post taking on those weaker arguments because, well, they were sort of awful (and because, like I said, Sarah beat me to the other stuff).
The main problem with the arguments made by the College Republicans is that they seem to want to exist in a world other than our own. They claim to “look forward to the day when society is free from discrimination,” and then argue as if we’ve already reached that point. They intellectualize the Safe Spaces and do so free from context, so that the flier begins as if these spaces had cropped up yesterday: “The establishment of ‘safe spaces,’ such as the Stephen Donaldson (for LGBTQ) and Malcolm X (for Blacks) lounges, is troubling on many levels.” They go on to make statements like “the designation of particular areas as ‘safe’ suggests that the rest of the campus is in some way dangerous” and, “rather than promoting inclusivity, ‘safe spaces’ emphasize the differences between students and legitimize a mentality of on-campus victimization.”
First of all, these “safe spaces” are not new to Columbia—both the Malcolm X Lounge and the Stephen J. Donaldson (formerly the “Gay Lounge”) were established in the 1970s. They have existed on this campus for more than 30 years because for more than 30 years there has been a need for them. The notion that safe spaces imply that “the rest of campus is in some way dangerous” serves as a nice soundbite, but misrepresents the issue. It wants us to conclude that such lounges are unnecessary because minorities on campus don’t seem to face any immediate risk of physical harm. But these safe spaces aren’t panic rooms—each one is, as the Office of Student Affairs points out, an “intellectual, cultural, and social safe-haven.”
Of course the question is, “safe-havens from what?” The answer, obvious as it seems, is prejudice. The College Republicans seem to believe that minorities at Columbia face no prejudice (physically, intellectually, or otherwise), and that the lounges therefore constitute “special treatment.” They want to “celebrate the diversity of this university’s individuals rather than that of its factions.” Again, these arguments treat the world as it should be and not as it is. The fact is, people do identify in “factions,” (By the way, CUCR, your word choice is troubling. There is nothing wrong with identifying with a minority group. One might even argue that you—the College Republicans—are one example of such a group, and one that faces a certain kind of prejudice at Columbia) and prejudice does exist on this campus. I won’t pretend to know what it is like to be a minority, or to be able to fully explain the nature of this prejudice (though I don’t think any of us has to look too far back to recall the last time we heard one of our peers utter a slur or express a bias), but the simple fact that the LGBT and Black communities at Columbia feel the need to have such lounges should be proof enough that they’re necessary and should be reason enough for their existence.
Indeed, what was most offensive about the arguments made by the College Republicans is the idea that these safe spaces are somehow an affront to campus life. They claim that they prevent an “inclusive society,” when in fact the groups that use the Malcolm X and Stephen J. Donaldson lounges are all about inclusiveness. Truthfully I find it hard to understand why the College Republicans chose to raise this non-issue now. I look forward, as they do, “to the day when society is free from discrimination,” but until that day I hope we can all agree to leave Columbia’s safe spaces alone.
Neil FitzPatrick is a Spectrum opinion blogger. He shares a birthday with Ben Savage, is trying not to look too much into that.
This article poorly articulates any response to the CUCR position.
They don’t care if safe spaces popped up yesterday, or have been around forever. That fact has no bearing on their argument.
They are not assuming that no discrimination exists. No where is that assumption even hinted at. You, like many people who have discussed this issue, construct this straw-man idea of the CUCR argument which includes the asinine assumption that discrimination doesn’t exist.
Those two arguments are the bulk of your piece, and they are pretty much worthless. So good job.
Oh, and then you drop this little intellectual gem: “but the simple fact that the LGBT and Black communities at Columbia feel the need to have such lounges should be proof enough that they’re necessary and should be reason enough for their existence.”
I want a safe space, because I feel discriminated against as a white male. But you can’t question that! Just because I want it, I deserve it! Reason enough, you say! Or perhaps you feel inclined to measure the legitimacy of my claim of discrimination. But that would be terribly messy, and would open up LGBT and black safe spaces to the same metrics.
CUCR doesn’t even want to have that messy debate. They just want to fight that discrimination everywhere, in any form. Give the “minorities” tools so that they feel comfortable fighting back!
Lastly, can we just do a little contextualization here? We are on a college campus in NYC. This is already one of the safest places in the world for LGBT people. That doesn’t mean that it can’t get better, or that it shouldn’t get better. It does, however, question whether or not the university has an interest protecting people from pressures that will be present, and more intense, pretty much everywhere else in the world.
this is fucking right.
Not in the least….
but i think it actually is, sir
NOPE
I pity your ignorance and bigotry
If you really pity me then you should try enlighten me by demonstrating the error in my argument. I’m totally open to it!
I’m actually not totally against the existence of safe spaces, but the level of dogmatic liberalism/anti-Republicanism demonstrated in this debate has stunned me. Why aren’t we open to this discussion? Why can Spec laugh off the “awful” arguments of CUCR without giving CUCR some opportunity to respond?
Did you read this article? He’s not laughing it off, but critiquing it — and well, for that matter.
You are absolutely right. He gave those “awful” arguments the best defense possible. What was I thinking?
Just excuse my aside about his tone. There still is no positive argument for the existence of safe spaces besides the all encompassing, “if they want it, then the discussion should stop because that’s reason enough” argument.
typical liberal response. care to offer any arguments besides screaming racism?
“They are not assuming that no discrimination exists. No where is that assumption even hinted at. You, like many people who have discussed this issue, construct this straw-man idea of the CUCR argument which includes the asinine assumption that discrimination doesn’t exist.”
Yes they are. They say there is no need for safe spaces, because the rest of the campus is safe. That means they’re arguing that the amount of discrimination on the rest of campus is the same amount as in the safe space, i.e. none. If there was more discrimination on campus, then there would be a need for a safe space, and they deny this.
1. FINE! So let’s assume that CUCR is making that point. Then it is merely a factual error on their part, but it doesn’t take away from the larger argument that “safe spaces” shouldn’t be allocated, but rather all of campus should be considered a safe space. This article makes the mistake of thinking that brushing away the argumentative minutia kills the whole argument, but that is just not right. Their argument in no way depends on this assumption.
2. quoted from the flyer: “We look forward to the day when society is free from discrimination.” They assume that in the FUTURE campus can be free from discrimination, and thus that campus is currently in a state that is not free from discrimination.
” all of campus should be considered a safe space.”
It would be nice if we could do this, except this clearly is not the case. In fact, there were two op-eds in the paper this week alone proving that this is simply not the case, much as we would prefer otherwise.
Really well said, Neil.
Make out with another guy at a frat party and see how “safe” a space campus is. Hell even talking to people outside class, in dorms, overhearing conversations in the dining hall, it is clear that not everywhere on this campus is a safe space. I don’t see why the CUCR’s are begruging the LGBT groups the closet-sized Donaldson lounge (which apparently is locked because the groups use it to store their property). These flyers are clearly an openly antagonistic move against EAAH by the CUCR’s and reek of thinly veiled homophobia.
Make an Obama joke at a frat party and see how “safe” a space campus is. Hell even talking to people outside class, in dorms, overhearing conversations in the dining hall, it is clear that not everywhere on this campus is a safe space. I don’t see why the Spec is begrudging the CUCR their opinions left and right (which weren’t even widely publicized until writers jumped to attack them). These columns are clearly an openly antagonistic move against CUCR by the Spec and reek of thinly veiled intolerance for conservatives.
Aww intolerance for conservatives? You mean largely rich people who have the freedom to get married and don’t typically hang themselves because of bullying? Excuse me while I shed a tear…
and you’re annoying. stop using LGBT bullying as some beat-all argument, not every ‘mo shares your opinion.
do you know one of the reasons it took me so long to come out? it wasn’t fear of bullying or rejection (and I’m from a very anti-LGBT region). it was the fear of having to conform to the “gay” standard that people like you propagate. i didn’t want to live as a gay person; i wanted to be a person who, among many things, happened to be gay. i don’t want to have my own lounge, and i don’t want to get a special graduation ceremony from OMA for being “diverse.”
Also, coming from an exceptionally liberal democrat (me), you sound like an idiot when talking about conservatives.
Thank you for your voice on this issue.
People are incredibly diverse. I think CUCR’s point about this issue is that no one room could or should be defined by the stereotype of one group. We are all minorities of one, and we should defend ourselves and be comfortable being an individual.
I don’t care if not every gay person shares my opinion. All I know is that EAAH feels that there is a need for these safe spaces and that is good enough for me. If you don’t want to participate in these programs (safe spaces, OMA stuff) I don’t think anyone’s forcing you to. Nobody’s forcing you to conform to a “gay stereotype” (which it is patently offensive to say groups like EAAH promote). I just think it would be wrong to campaign against these programs for the people who really want them and feel like they need them. All in all, CUCR’s are taking a non-issue and turning it into an issue and one that could potentially make LGBT groups feel marginalized.
Thank you for your opinion, and have a wonderful day.
Yeah excuse me while I shed a tear for the mostly white/asian and privileged CUCR’s. I can’t remember the last time a Republican jumped off a bridge because he was being bullied for being a Republican. Given the current state of affairs in this country, that argument just doesn’t hold up.
Solution: Create a safe space for Republicans.
This entire center-right nation is that safe space. CUCR’s knew about the political climate here before they came to this school. But what the hell, you’re right. Give the CUCR’s their own closet-sized lounge if that makes them happy.
^^^
So did everyone. This is perhaps the safest place in the whole world for LGBT groups.
+1
Also, will all of the prominent religious groups on campus, why isn’t there a safe space for atheists? There aren’t outright heterosexual groups on campus that protest, flyer, and try to hand out converting pamphlets on college walk. But campus is filled with different orthodox religious groups.
I’m really not even kidding. I feel uncomfortable as an atheist on campus. I would really appreciate a safe space where I can sip martinis and read Dawkins in peace.
Are you kidding? There are so many atheists here! I would feel much more marginalized as a religious person than I do as an atheist here…
The fact that i want it is reason enough
There actually already is an athiests club… go talk to them. They hold events (two years ago, they even brought in Richard Dawkins to speak).
Are there not lgbt groups?
why do people always assume frats are homophobic? There ARE gay members of these organizations
Because fraternities are, by and large, rather heteronormative. That’s not in itself a bad thing, but it means that signs of homophobia stands out much more than they would otherwise.
It also doesn’t help that most of the gay frat members aren’t out (at least not publicly). Again, it’s their choice, but it means that all people see is the heteronormative public facade.
So you are WAY over generalizing a group of people and reducing them to something which is politically convenient to you… Okay… Sounds like all frat guys (who don’t have a house), bros, might as well say anyone with a “heteronormative facade” deserves a safe space because people like you insult them and discriminate based merely upon their choice of association.
Do you not see how this debate basically ends in three ways?
1. Tons of groups get safe spaces and campus is segmented.
2. Some sort of evaluation is set up to determine the legitimacy of the need for a safe space, and conservatives, atheists, fat people, smokers, etc. probably do deserve one.
3. The university ignores the student debate and just keeps everything the way it is.
Yes, well, the answer to “Why does some generalization exist” is hard to answer without invoking another generalization.
Can Spec stop being one-sided and publish a pro-CUCR piece?
op-eds expressing conservative viewpoints run in the paper pretty frequently.
Derek Turner (CUCR member) even wrote a piece on this exact issue a couple of months ago, well before this whole campaign started (and well before any pro-safe space op-eds were published).
That’s not the point. This issue deserves to be debated on both sides.
Also, where is CQA on this issue? Why aren’t they fighting their own battle?
If you want to weigh in, go submit your own op-ed. Stop bitching about other people not writing the opinions you want them to write and go write it yourself.
I did. It was that first long comment up there. I’m less concerned about having my voice heard and more concerned with the general unbalanced debate on campus.
For as dominatingly vocal as lgbt advocates are, I’m surprised that they feel the need for a safe space.
Safe space for ROTC cadets?