Comments on: Editorial: Safe Spaces Suppress Necessary Dialogue

By: Olivia Cooley

Olivia Cooley — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 18:16:59 +0000

When the students wrote “This is us asking for basic respect of our cultures and our livelihoods,” I don’t think they were claiming that Christakis had disrespected their culture or livelihoods. I think they were referring to the original issue, which was that the Multicultural Affairs Committee had sent an email advising students to be culturally sensitive in their celebrations and costume choices. Many people (including Christakis) responded to that email by suggesting that it was a form of coddling students, and I think the aforementioned sentence from the students’ response email was simply pointing out that asking not to have your race or identity disrespected as a holiday celebration is not a form of coddling, but is rather a simple demand for respect.

Additionally, I don’t see how the safe space issue factors into what happened at Yale. As far as I’m aware, the only mention of a “safe space” came from Christakis’ own email, in which she lamented that “American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience”. This statement raises the question; for whom were these universities a safe space? Because they certainly weren’t safe for the students of color and other groups who were targeted by said regressive behavior.

The concept of safe spaces doesn’t seem very threatening in practice – it’s not as if there’s a physical space mapped out that requires anyone who enters to hold certain beliefs. For example, if I wanted to facilitate a discussion on the issue of abortion and I deemed it a “safe space,” it doesn’t mean there can’t be debate or that no one can disagree with each other. It just means that we will be respectful and won’t attack each other for things like our gender, sexual orientation, race, class, etc. This isn’t “suppressing necessary dialogue,” it’s merely suppressing racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, etc. dialogue, which doesn’t belong in an academic setting anyway.

To me, the issue of safe spaces is overblown. They’re not used super frequently, and they’re often ill-defined and not really enforceable. There are certainly things that are more threatening to necessary dialogue than the concept of safe spaces.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 02:17:47 +0000

Samantha, I would like to point out that you can’t ask to have a safe space and then not allow people in it. Safe spaces aren’t supposed to be only available for certain groups or beliefs. They’re for everyone. Now, you’re example of an anti-semite is one thing, but what’s stopping people from deciding that people that aren’t supporters of gay marriage or are pro-life don’t get to be included in the “safe space” because someone else in the group doesn’t like their beliefs? You can’t have a dialogue that’s only inclusive of one point of view.

By: Samantha Norman

Samantha Norman — Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:15:01 +0000

I have to respectfully disagree. The definition you found of safe spaces via thesafespaceproject’s tumblr page and pinned by Google (“anyone can relax and express their views, without fear that they will be made uncomfortable or unsafe because of their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or any other personal feature”) is general, as you said. It is an umbrella definition that only attempts to account for many societally-normalized intricacies of oppression. A safe space is so much more than that definition because a safe space is a functional condition– for one, declaring and agreeing upon safe space is necessary to even start the difficult conversations on race and racism that you’re writing about. An example: I’m a white cisgendered female who carries with me significant privilege. But if I’d like to talk about my personal and political opinions, I’d hate to do so with someone who has made antisemitic statements in front of me! I’d feel unsafe and might slip up and say some unsafe things back. My identity is one among many, though when my fellow students suffer from the constant aggression of being underrepresented as students of color in a predominantly white institution, that should take priority. Maybe an extension of pure logic and a niched, vague definition of safe space would lead one to say that safe space can snowball into censure as in the case at Yale, but what actually has snowballed is white supremacy’s excusing of jabs, jokes, and the blatant perpetration of violence to the extent that now we have to say so loudly, we need to “creat[e] an atmosphere where the student feels important” because we’ve created a society and racial hierarchy that doesn’t give that right of importance to students of color (quote from http://www.academia.edu/7938423/WHAT_IS_A_SAFE_AND_AN_UNSAFE_SPACE)

Claiming that the instance of a photojournalist being shut out because of “safe space” is nothing new– that photojournalist should understand that taking pictures of strangers is hardly ever ethical and consent is a huge topic of debate in the field. Approaching politely OR waiting for the explicit invitation of those students for press is much more productive and truthful to the story, and the duty of any reporter or documentary photographer is to report truth.

Stating that black students in Missouri have had “thorny” weeks because their request to be explicitly validated and valued was ignored by administrators is an understatement and a microagression (more than that, actually).

If I’ve misspoken in any way I welcome further comment.

-Samantha Norman, FCLC 2018, not hiding behind my safe space

By: Dean Rodgers

Dean Rodgers — Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:57:03 +0000

TONIGHT: the Bias Incident Resource Group hosts the first of its Film/Media Series followed by reflection and discussion. Come see “Dear White People” at 5:30 in McGinley 237.For more information about what has been happening in this area here at Fordham: http://www.fordham.edu/AGAINSTBIAS