Safe spaces are relatively new constructions on college campuses. Originally, safe spaces referred to places where people of marginalized groups could come together and express their opinions without the fears of aggression or discrimination, especially among members of the LGBTQ community.
Over time, safe spaces gradually extended to other categories: race, ethnicity, gender, cultural background, religion, etc., in order to promote diversity and inclusiveness and provide a learning environment comfortable and secure enough for people of those minority groups to speak freely.
This type of safe space on a college campus is a brilliant idea. No one should feel threatened to the point of silence. Everyone should be encouraged to speak freely
…show more content…
First, a political safe space completely contradicts the freedom of speech. A safe space such as this shields Democrats from the reality of Trump as president-elect and from conservative viewpoints, effectively eschewing any ideology other than the liberal agenda.
At an educational institution—where the sole purpose is to cultivate the unbridled exchange of ideas and knowledge—a political safe space should be frowned upon. Universities must not be selective about ideas, lest the value of their education be compromised. Students certainly do not possess the right not to be offended.
Second, political safe spaces do little to prepare students for the vicissitudes of life. At institutions such as the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania, these political safe spaces have provided everything from puppies to cookies to intellectual discussion in order to process the magnitude of the election.
Seriously? Post-election counseling? Stop whining about something that can't be changed and get over it. You must be able to move on from loss; dwelling on hurt feelings doesn't help
College is full of new experiences, new people, and new communities, and many universities encourage the exchange of new ideas and diversity among students. This year, the University of Chicago sent out a letter to all of its incoming freshmen informing them that in keeping with their beliefs of freedom of expression and healthy discussion and debate, the school would not provide “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings”. Senior Sophie Downes found this letter to be misleading in many ways, including in the definitions of safe spaces and trigger warnings, as well as the issues it was addressing. Downes claims that the letter was misrepresenting the school, but also was using the letter as a sort
In her op-ed, "In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas", Shulevitz discusses the idea behind freedom of speech on college campuses and how safe spaces are snuffing it out. Shulevitz uses multiple examples of problems that have arisen because of safe spaces at universities such as Brown University, Columbia University, and Oxford 's University 's Christ Church college. Debate cancellations, essay opinions that caused protest, and other situations involving freedom of speech that Shulevitz uses to back up her opinion that safe spaces are nothing but harm to college campuses. According to Shulevitz Op-ed, safe spaces are nothing but an incubator that grows a festering amount of weak individuals who are destroying their social skills and developing
In the editorial “Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt examine the political correctness on college campuses and how it may be hurting students’ mental health. They explain by allowing campuses to discuss words, ideas, and subjects that can cause discomfort or give offense can provide positive attributes like helping students to produce better arguments and more productive discussions over differences. Does Lukianoff and Haidt provide sufficient evidence about how college campuses should raise attention about the need to balance freedom of speech to help students in their future and education to lead the reader to agree with their argument? The answer is yes,
The Coddling of the American Mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, is an article published by the Atlantic Journal about the negative effects trigger warnings and microaggressions have on students in college. Trigger warnings are disclaimers about any potential emotional response from a class or its material. (44) Microaggressions are words or actions that have no sinister intentions, but people take as such. (44) Greg Lukianoff is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. (47) As the leader of the foundation, Greg Lukianoff has witnessed and fought many legal occasions of trigger warnings and microaggressions resulting in the masking of freedom of speech. Coauthor Jonathan Haidt is a professor at New
Supporting Point Why should college campuses be any different? They contain the country’s future presidents, senators and judges. They are also one of the most vulnerable places because most colleges don’t allow firearms on campus. The most important factor is that many students don’t pay attention to their surroundings so they are put in dangerous situations and they should be able to defend themselves to a certain extent.
Many college campuses restrict free speech solely to these areas, meaning that the rest of campus is not open for expression.
Political correctness may be a coined term that the general population does not necessarily know the definition of, but is relevant in every single person’s life. In today’s society one must be very careful when verbalizing opinions in order to prevent offending others around, or from disturbing the Politically Correct Puritans: those who strongly support censorship of politically incorrect labels (Suedfeld et al 1994). There are many different theories as to what makes political correctness important and why college campuses seem to be so heavily surrounded by political correcting activists, but oddly enough there has not been an extensive amount of research done on the topic.
In recent news, Milo Yiannopolous had planned a visit to the UC Berkeley campus at the request of the student Republican body. Many minority students who were familiar with the content of Yiannopolous' visit planned to protest what they viewed as hate speech. Berkeley has now become the site of violent protests between groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter against conservative groups in support of Yiannopolous and President Trump where both groups fight in order to obtain the moral high ground without actually communicating and collaborating with each other with ways to stop the fighting and violence. This leads us to a case where we have two groups shouting at each other without actually listening to what the opposing side has to say. This division is not just specific to the campuses of elite universities now but to everyday society as well. With the recent presidential election in the U.S. as well has the primary and caucus elections politics came to extremes in the nation. Reports of hate groups attacking minorities at Trump rallies and terroristic threats of death against white people by leftist organizations have become daily occurrences. This conflict between ideals has thus led to negative consequences on everyone involved being felt through educational institutions, places of employment, and in many communities
Like trigger warnings, there are certain situations that may call for a “safe place,” but as the President of the University of Oklahoma points out, college “…is not a 'safe place, ' but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others.” (Stump) In other words, we are limiting this generation negatively by not allowing them to be exposed to other opinions other than their own. By making colleges “safe places,” it ultimately infers that the working world is a “safe place,” which could be very misleading
Colleges and universities control their faculties and students’ actions by shaming and criticizing their faculties and students on social media when the faculty’s or student’s actions cause distresses to other college students. They also control their faculties’ or students’ actions by firing the faculty or suspending the student. In an article that is posted on the website Newsweek, Nina Burleigh states that “American college campuses are starting to resemble George Orwell’s Oceania with its Thought Police, or East Germany under the Stasi. College newspapers have been muzzled and trashed, and students are disciplined or suspended for “hate speech,” while exponentially more are being shamed and silenced on social media by their peers. Professors quake at the possibility of accidentally offending any student and are rethinking syllabi and restricting class discussions to only the most anodyne topics.” The idea American colleges and universities are compared to the Stasi, the secret police of East Germany, or a thought police shows how dangerous and restrictive college campuses have become. This quote also cites the fact colleges have tried to censor their own newspaper as one of the examples how dangerous campuses have become. The fact that colleges try to censor their own newspaper and to intimidate their professors is troubling because this fact indicates that American colleges and
Notably, minority students are more likely to observe pressure by the superiority of students and realize that a violent response to fighting words will result in a risk to their own life, so, they are forced to remain silent. Indeed, speech codes are not as harmful to freedom of speech as the opponents argue, because most of them were made for the purpose of preventing speech that is not exchangeable and not protected as pure speech. In this sense, special exceptions for the content-neutral principle should be allowed on campus.
College campuses have been known to be popular breeding grounds for rumors. Ask any college student walking around a typical campus for the latest gossip, and they may flood you with more stories, quips, and anecdotes than you may have ever asked for. Some of these stories lead to codes and rules for living safely on campus, as urban legends about campus-related murders and crimes begin to circulate more frequently. In addition, these stories may deal with some supernatural elements. With the increased security alerts nationwide, caution is exercised in all circumstances and a bit of the anxiety and security alerts have spread to American colleges as well.
Political socialization as defined by the University of Texas at Austin is “the process by which individuals acquire beliefs, values, and habits of thought and action related to government, politics, and society” (3.1). Individuals are taught the dominant values of their societies by religion, parents, teachers, pastors, siblings, churches, friends, and many others. One then obtains the feeling of self-evidence of these truths based on the plights of those who are closest to them imploring them of these truths almost from birth. Perhaps a couple of the most popular or effective agents of socialization are religion and higher education. Although most are not aware this process of socialization is taking place, we inevitably form our opinions and truths of political beliefs based on those in closest proximity to us as children.
And as Erwin Chemerinsky, a lawyer and law professor states, “Often the best remedy for hateful speech is more speech” (Chemerinsky). Everyone has the right to offend as well as be offended, but in some cases, colleges have become too politically correct in entertaining ideas of trigger warnings, micro aggressions, and safe spaces. These things tend to shun any ideas expressed that are not commonly agreed with, and are often a form of censorship. Students and Administrators disinvite speakers, censor artwork, wrongfully discipline students over cultural appropriation rules, and threaten to defund student organizations and papers (Rampell). Colleges such as DePaul and UC Berkeley have taken part in this by finding loopholes to censor speakers.
Once you designate some safe spaces as safe, you imply that the rest are unsafe,” (Shulevitz as quoted in Dresner). Students being safe guarded