Since “safe spaces” became the buzzword for criticism of today’s “infantilised” college students, a discomfiting number of stories has emerged. They range from the troubling—a white afrobeat band removed from a concert line-up and race-segregated screenings of Dear White People in a UK university—to the humorous NY Times description of a Brown University area “equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh…[and] a video of frolicking puppies.”
With emotions running high, the pro-safe-spaces brigade has fallen into the exact kind of debate-shirking it was first accused of. An online article titled 6 Reasons Why We Need Safe Spaces seemed to capture the underlying sentiment; points two and three stated, “Healing is more important than debate”, and “Not all ideas are worth debating”. A letter written by a senior from Stony Brook University in response to Judith Shulevitz’s NY Times article went further, in an intergenerational attack peppered with surprising animosity and a hint of arrogance. “The current generation of college students,” he writes, “has denied validity to the failed ideas of the past. We have embraced the knowledge and empathy of the present. We are shaping the wisdom of the future.”
Though perhaps less strident, the anti-safe-spaces side is not without its failings. The artificiality they perceive in technical terms like “triggering” does not mean that a rape victim’s reaction to the subject being unexpectedly brought up is neither genuine nor relevant. Those who believe that such potentially hurtful topics must be openly debated have found unlikely allies in a subset of commentators—white privilege nay-sayers and the like—who believe there are no reasons to be upset in the first place.
How can two such opposed camps be reconciled? Universities have decided to let safe spaces be. “Let each faction pitch camp on either side,” impartial observers clamor. Students feeling under attack would be able to retreat into a safe space of their liking; controversial journalists and commentators would once more be allowed on campus lecture halls. While practical in the short term, this is not a sustainable solution.
It is not sustainable because it reinforces the notion that commentators perceived to be insensitive (according to whom or what standard is not clear) are directly and intentionally harming students. Safe spaces’ raison d’être is a tenuous link between taking offence and feeling threatened. Promoting safe spaces may not stifle debate, but it stifles its reach. It divides student bodies into those whose identities are under threat and those whose opinions are under threat. It creates the illusion that political debate is about condemning individuals and their lifestyle choices. This is no basis on which to build a university, and it doesn’t prepare students for life after graduation.
As the ultimate arbiters, universities must exercise caution when organizing events; moral judgments on individuals’ identities are best reserved for newspaper columns, church pulpits and the occasional philosophy classroom. Neutrality should guarantee that debate topics reflect the different interests of the student body. Safe spaces should continue to serve those who feel threatened—but students should attempt to separate their personal response from broader political issues raised.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution and exceptions will have to be made. I nevertheless propose two assumptions to act as stepping stones towards concord:
- Students, speakers and university staff have good intentions. These must be factored in when considering the emotional damage unintentionally caused.
- All statements should first be seen as political, intended for the betterment of society, not that of the individual.
If universities are to remain fertile grounds for ideas that challenge orthodoxy, both sides of the debate will have to come out, white flag in hand, and engage in level-headed debate.