Safe Spaces on Campus and Otherwise- Do we make them?

[TranquilMind]

When we lived in Kansas City my daughter heard the N word in school so much that when she was in Kindergarten she thought it was an acceptable jocular manner of greeting someone. She also had a friend that as effeminate. He was teased so much that she came home everyday crying. Once he moved away was when we started homeschooling.

 

I live in SC now, I see people with confederate flags on their cars all the time.

 

Wow, I'm sorry.  It is hard to believe that young children have parents and family that speak that way today, because that must be where such young children pick it up.  Or from completely unmonitored media. 

 

[TranquilMind]

In your OP you wrote,

 

 

 

 

Is this a general discussion about safe spaces or only about an instance in which people wrote a certain candidate in chalk around minority areas?

 

I really don't care who people are voting for, without knowing why one doesn't know if they are voting for that person because they are a crazy racist, they think building walls will add jobs to the economy, or they just do what Jerry Falwell tells them. There are many reasons.

Whatever you want to talk about in reference to the topic is fine with me, given the limitations, of course. 

 

The second statement sounds pretty judgmental but ....can't address that here. 

 

I will only say there are various reasons that people vote for various candidates, and no group is monolithic in its support, I am sure. 

 

[Tanaqui]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who simply don't care what they say around small children - or, worse, they think what they're saying is self-evidently correct.

[SKL]

I don't think "safe spaces" are about not having to hear "kill fags" etc.  Those kinds of words have not been allowed on campus for a very long time; talking like that is breaking rules and there are remedies for that.  You don't need a safe space in response to that.  You need administrators who do their jobs.

 

When I was in law school in 1988, someone put up a hand-scrawled sign on a Black Law Students Halloween party notice, with the single word "spooks."  The administration responded harshly, there was a lot of discussion among the student body, and that kind of behavior didn't happen again, at least for the next 4 years.  All institutions have a right to require civil behavior.  People can be disciplined for clearly derogatory comments etc.  Bringing this sort of thing up as if that's what we need "safe spaces" for is confusing if not disingenuous.  The idea o making a "safe space" from that implies that it's OK to talk like that everywhere else, when it isn't.

Edited October 23, 2016 by SKL

[hornblower]

I agree with some who have posted that the idea of safe spaces have in many ways existed all along on campuses, in the form of clubs, societies etc. They're by definition a group of people who are coming together with some common view point and who don't want to be harassed about that viewpoint for a point in time. I don't think anyone is proposing that during their whole 4 years + at college they should be in a protected bubble.   

What's up for debate is how much protection these spaces should have. When does an attempt to engage with opposing viewpoints turn into harassment?  If I know a club or group whose views I vehemently disagree with is meeting, what are the proper actions to take? Nothing? A quiet table outside? Pamphleting? Invite them to a round table discussion?  There are ways of airing wildly competing world views without threatening people. 

Chalking is not always benign, not if it's threatening. Just because slurs or harassment or threats can be easily washed away or painted over or ripped down off a notice board, doesn't change the fact that they were made. That's the part that makes people feel unsafe. If someone chalks a slogan saying "go home you slur/racist/misogynist/ etc term" that's not ok. If it's a KKK affiliated candidate whose name is being chalked, that would be threatening to many. 


More generally, I think a lot of this handwringing is just a variation of "kids these days" and I think it's as invalid as all the rest of that moaning. 

Society as a whole is imo a lot more varied and way less segregated than it was 50+ years ago. People are being exposed to tons of ideas, experiences, and a wide variety of belief and thought. Even with all the biases built in to consuming only a certain type of media (& never clearing your google search cache lol) everyone is still learning a lot about other subcultures and different ways of being. 

 

[Slartibartfast]

 

 

The second statement sounds pretty judgmental but ....can't address that here. 

 

 

 

I was being hyperbolic, sorry.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't think "safe spaces" are about not having to hear "kill fags" etc.  Those kinds of words have not been allowed on campus for a very long time; talking like that is breaking rules and there are remedies for that.  You don't need a safe space in response to that.  You need administrators who do their jobs.

 

When I was in law school in 1988, someone put up a hand-scrawled sign on a Black Law Students Halloween party notice, with the single word "spooks."  The administration responded harshly, there was a lot of discussion among the student body, and that kind of behavior didn't happen again, at least for the next 4 years.  All institutions have a right to require civil behavior.  People can be disciplined for clearly derogatory comments etc.  Bringing this sort of thing up as if that's what we need "safe spaces" for is confusing if not disingenuous.  The idea o making a "safe space" from that implies that it's OK to talk like that everywhere else, when it isn't.

 

This happened last year at the University that I attended twenty years ago. 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/us/oklahoma-fraternity-chant/

 

A lot of people did say it was censorship and there was a big debate about it.

 

http://www.jurist.org/dateline/2015/04/mason-ou-free-speech.php

 

It isn't disingenuous, it is happening and it is something people debate.

 

Who debated it? The NR did

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415186/congratulations-university-oklahoma-your-outrage-you-just-violated-law-david-french

 

NY Daily News did

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/michael-meyers-don-expel-ou-racists-article-1.2143352

 

Reason did

 

http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/12/frat-brothers-make-execrable-racist-stat

 

I could find more but I think I made my point. It isn't disingenuous. That was over the N word. If you think that there wouldn't be MORE people offended if the same rules were applied to hate speech towards LGBT people you would be sadly mistaken.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[TranquilMind]

I agree with some who have posted that the idea of safe spaces have in many ways existed all along on campuses, in the form of clubs, societies etc. They're by definition a group of people who are coming together with some common view point and who don't want to be harassed about that viewpoint for a point in time. I don't think anyone is proposing that during their whole 4 years + at college they should be in a protected bubble.   

 

What's up for debate is how much protection these spaces should have. When does an attempt to engage with opposing viewpoints turn into harassment?  If I know a club or group whose views I vehemently disagree with is meeting, what are the proper actions to take? Nothing? A quiet table outside? Pamphleting? Invite them to a round table discussion?  There are ways of airing wildly competing world views without threatening people. 

 

Chalking is not always benign, not if it's threatening. Just because slurs or harassment or threats can be easily washed away or painted over or ripped down off a notice board, doesn't change the fact that they were made. That's the part that makes people feel unsafe. If someone chalks a slogan saying "go home you slur/racist/misogynist/ etc term" that's not ok. If it's a KKK affiliated candidate whose name is being chalked, that would be threatening to many. 

 

 

More generally, I think a lot of this handwringing is just a variation of "kids these days" and I think it's as invalid as all the rest of that moaning. 

 

Society as a whole is imo a lot more varied and way less segregated than it was 50+ years ago. People are being exposed to tons of ideas, experiences, and a wide variety of belief and thought. Even with all the biases built in to consuming only a certain type of media (& never clearing your google search cache lol) everyone is still learning a lot about other subcultures and different ways of being. 

 

 

 

My answer:  Why go to the location and/or engage with members of a club who meet simply because you disagree with them?  I like your "invite them to a round table discussion" though. 

People advocating a candidate I dislike is not the same as making me feel unsafe.  I don't get the leap there.  Unless said candidate is saying "All X group should go home you (fill in slur)" as you state, the line has not been crossed. 

 

I agree with you that there is far less segregation and isolation today in society in general, and certainly on college campuses.  That makes it all the more perplexing that some feel the need and even the right to shut others' voices down. 

 

[TranquilMind]

This happened last year at the University that I attended twenty years ago. 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/us/oklahoma-fraternity-chant/

 

A lot of people did say it was censorship and there was a big debate about it.

 

http://www.jurist.org/dateline/2015/04/mason-ou-free-speech.php

 

It isn't disingenuous, it is happening and it is something people debate.

 

Who debated it? The NR did

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415186/congratulations-university-oklahoma-your-outrage-you-just-violated-law-david-french

 

NY Daily News did

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/michael-meyers-don-expel-ou-racists-article-1.2143352

 

Reason did

 

http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/12/frat-brothers-make-execrable-racist-stat

 

From your article on CNN: 

The students on the bus clap and pump their fists as they boisterously chant, "There will never be a ni**** SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he can never sign with me."

 

By Sunday night, SAE's national chapter had suspended the University of Oklahoma members and threatened lifelong suspensions for anyone responsible for the chant, but Boren took it a step further.

 

That is a far cry from anything we are discussing here about opposing ideas.  They are actually chanting about lynchings, which are actually threatening a specific demographic.

[TranquilMind]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who simply don't care what they say around small children - or, worse, they think what they're saying is self-evidently correct.

 

Good Lord, who does that?

 

I have been a parent for decades and have never uttered a curse word worse than "Hell". 

 

[Slartibartfast]

 

From your article on CNN: 

The students on the bus clap and pump their fists as they boisterously chant, "There will never be a ni**** SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he can never sign with me."

 

By Sunday night, SAE's national chapter had suspended the University of Oklahoma members and threatened lifelong suspensions for anyone responsible for the chant, but Boren took it a step further.

 

That is a far cry from anything we are discussing here about opposing ideas.  They are actually chanting about lynchings, which are actually threatening a specific demographic.

 

 

 

I said "hate speech," I was never talking about "opposing ideas" nor are "safe places" about opposing ideas.

[TranquilMind]

I said "hate speech," I was never talking about "opposing ideas" nor are "safe places" about opposing ideas.

 

Ok, granted.

 

But I think you will admit that this sort of chant that "N's should be lynched" is rather uncommon and far outside the safe space discussion we have been having.  Of course that is hate speech that advocates death for a certain demographic.

 

Quite unlike X for President in chalk messages. 

[SKL]

This happened last year at the University that I attended twenty years ago. 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/us/oklahoma-fraternity-chant/

 

A lot of people did say it was censorship and there was a big debate about it.

 

http://www.jurist.org/dateline/2015/04/mason-ou-free-speech.php

 

It isn't disingenuous, it is happening and it is something people debate.

 

Who debated it? The NR did

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415186/congratulations-university-oklahoma-your-outrage-you-just-violated-law-david-french

 

NY Daily News did

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/michael-meyers-don-expel-ou-racists-article-1.2143352

 

Reason did

 

http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/12/frat-brothers-make-execrable-racist-stat

 

Discussing the line between allowed speech and prohibited speech (per campus rules) is fine, just like any other civil discussion is fine.  I still say that "safe spaces" aren't the way to respond.  That's like telling black people they need to live on the other side of the tracks because people on this side might be nasty to them.

 

There are lots of ways to address stupid behavior whether it arguably crosses the "disallowable" line or not.  The best way I've seen, where I've lived, has been peer pressure, because wherever I've lived the general population is not cool with hurtful or marginalizing speech.  Perhaps a different approach is needed in some other populations.  That's a whole other complex discussion.

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, granted.

 

But I think you will admit that this sort of chant that "N's should be lynched" is rather uncommon and far outside the safe space discussion we have been having.  Of course that is hate speech that advocates death for a certain demographic.

 

Quite unlike X for President in chalk messages. 

 

Why did they write it where they did? What would be the purpose in placing it there?

 

 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Slartibartfast]

Discussing the line between allowed speech and prohibited speech (per campus rules) is fine, just like any other civil discussion is fine.  I still say that "safe spaces" aren't the way to respond.  That's like telling black people they need to live on the other side of the tracks because people on this side might be nasty to them.

 

There are lots of ways to address stupid behavior whether it arguably crosses the "disallowable" line or not.  The best way I've seen, where I've lived, has been peer pressure, because wherever I've lived the general population is not cool with hurtful or marginalizing speech.  Perhaps a different approach is needed in some other populations.  That's a whole other complex discussion.

 

 

But what if people do want places where they cannot be addressed that way? 

[hornblower]

One thing I keep forgetting is that unlike in the US, in Canada hate speech is illegal & not protected, so we have an over arching framework already providing a level of protection from the most egregious expressions. 

[TranquilMind]

Why did they write it where they did? What would be the purpose in placing it there?

 

Who knows?  Perhaps they felt unable to speak it, so they wrote it down.  Am I condoning writing all over campus? No.  But I also can't read their minds. 

 

[TranquilMind]

But what if people do want places where they cannot be addressed that way? 

 

Addressed what way? As in the chant?  That is already addressed.  The school shut it down.

 

What if people want places where they cannot be addressed how, exactly? 

[Slartibartfast]

Who knows?  Perhaps they felt unable to speak it, so they wrote it down.  Am I condoning writing all over campus? No.  But I also can't read their minds. 

 

 

Did they want someone to feel threatened or did they just feel that this was a missed opportunity to recruit in minority communities? Without knowing who did it and getting their answer how can someone know? 

 

What is intent? 

 

Now, this is hyperbole again but I can't think of an example atm so my apologies. If someone places a confederate flag on their car what do they mean? Do they mean, "Hi! I am a racist!" do they mean, "My ancestors fought for the Confederacy and I take pride in them," or do they mean, "'murica! Heck yeah!" I tend to avoid people who place confederate flags on their car because I find it menacing. Should I take it that way? Not necessarily, but that cannot be helped.

 

Do people have a reason to find campaign slogans directed towards them menacing? They do.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Slartibartfast]

Addressed what way? As in the chant?  That is already addressed.  The school shut it down.

 

What if people want places where they cannot be addressed how, exactly? 

 

What if people want places where they cannot be called LGBT slurs or just have mean things said to them.

 

Does anyone really think every instance of racism on campus results in expulsion? Only two students were expelled but several more can be seen in the video. The *leaders* of the chants were expelled, everyone that said it was not expelled. They were expelled for *leading.* Everyone that threatened a demographic was not expelled. 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[TranquilMind]

What if people want places where they cannot be called LGBT slurs or just have mean things said to them.

 

Does anyone really think every instance of racism on campus results in expulsion? Only two students were expelled but several more can be seen in the video. The *leaders* of the chants were expelled, everyone that said it was not expelled. They were expelled for *leading.* Everyone that threatened a demographic was not expelled. 

 

We all want places where we don't have mean things said to us.   I know I do. 

 

Most of us find them, somewhere, though you might have to sift through a lot of garbage to do that. 

 

Whose responsibility is it to provide them for us? 

 

When my mom was elderly, she objected to doctors speaking directly to me about her, as if she wasn't there, and as if she didn't count.  She was right, of course.  She spoke up.  If she could not have spoken up, and there were days that happened, I spoke up for her. 

 

[SKL]

But what if people do want places where they cannot be addressed that way? 

 

I'm not sure what to say about the argument that racist speech is protected by the 1st amendment even in college.  I think that within an institution they ought to be able to set rules to keep a basic level of civility, and I believe that is still the way real life is, even though some "intellectual thinkers" feel that isn't right.  The reality is that when things like this happen on campus, it is countered in a strong way by both authorities and students.  Those folks you linked said it wasn't legal to expel the students; they didn't say the students should have felt no repercussions.

 

What can people do if they find themselves in a place where others feel free to rain epithets upon them?  Well, assuming such a university exists in the USA, they can go to their own dorm room, or a friend's room, or hopefully a classroom, or leave the campus (like I said it's not a prison), start/join a counter-movement, and/or transfer to a school where that is not the culture.

 

It seems really disturbing to suggest that the answer to racist speech/behavior is de jure segregation.

[luuknam]

Am I the only one who keeps thinking "why don't you go to the library if you don't want to listen to people saying stuff you don't want to hear?". I'm pretty sure that if you're sitting reading at the library at pretty much any university in the US, and someone comes up to you and starts saying whatever slurs/mean things to you out of nowhere, you can get a librarian to make them leave you alone/kick them out/etc if they don't stop.

 

ETA: librarians are usually pretty pro free speech - just not in the unsolicited harassing patrons kind of way.

Edited October 23, 2016 by luuknam

[hornblower]

Am I the only one who keeps thinking "why don't you go to the library if you don't want to listen to people saying stuff you don't want to hear?". I'm pretty sure that if you're sitting reading at the library at pretty much any university in the US, and someone comes up to you and starts saying whatever slurs/mean things to you out of nowhere, you can get a librarian to make them leave you alone/kick them out/etc if they don't stop.

 

ETA: librarians are usually pretty pro free speech - just not in the unsolicited harassing patrons kind of way.

 

I think you're taking this too literally. 

 

It's not just a student being talked to in some time between classes. It's also about the culture of the campus, the activities. If your campus is known for singing anti women chants while doing a pub crawl, that's a campus which is hostile to women.

 

If you're part of a hated or vilified group on a campus, your suggestion is that you should scurry from dorm to class and hide in the library in between?  

 

THAT is a segregation I absolutely don't agree with.

[hornblower]

Thinking more about this, it seems to me that the people frequently complaining about safe spaces are complaining that *they* are being forced to face their prejudices and their views that there's only one interpretation of things.

They're the ones who are trying to make the whole campus safe for *them* to continue their narrow worldview..... 

Asking them to consider different gender identities, different sexualities, different religions, different cultures, different ethnicities and give them all equal credence & respect is what's ticking them off. 

[SKL]

I'm wondering who's "frequently complaining about safe spaces."  The only ones I've heard have been non-students.  I guess if there are people on campus who are frustrated because they can't go call people nasty names all day long, that's a problem we ought to address.  I just haven't heard of that happening.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm not sure what to say about the argument that racist speech is protected by the 1st amendment even in college.  I think that within an institution they ought to be able to set rules to keep a basic level of civility, and I believe that is still the way real life is, even though some "intellectual thinkers" feel that isn't right.  The reality is that when things like this happen on campus, it is countered in a strong way by both authorities and students.  Those folks you linked said it wasn't legal to expel the students; they didn't say the students should have felt no repercussions.

 

What can people do if they find themselves in a place where others feel free to rain epithets upon them?  Well, assuming such a university exists in the USA, they can go to their own dorm room, or a friend's room, or hopefully a classroom, or leave the campus (like I said it's not a prison), start/join a counter-movement, and/or transfer to a school where that is not the culture.

 

It seems really disturbing to suggest that the answer to racist speech/behavior is de jure segregation.

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/free-speech-on-public-college-campuses

 

Here's an article on the issue, it also discusses various SCOTUS cases that have dealt with this topic.

 

A *public* institution is different from a private one.

[TranquilMind]

I think you're taking this too literally. 

 

It's not just a student being talked to in some time between classes. It's also about the culture of the campus, the activities. If your campus is known for singing anti women chants while doing a pub crawl, that's a campus which is hostile to women.

 

If you're part of a hated or vilified group on a campus, your suggestion is that you should scurry from dorm to class and hide in the library in between?  

 

THAT is a segregation I absolutely don't agree with.

 

Should someone not address that sexism head on, in an administrative fashion?  Looks like that is what typically happens. 

 

What I can't fathom is how these young people think it is ok to objectify others and do sexual things in public, for God's sake.  What failure has taken place in our culture that this is even a remote possibility, much less an actual thing? 

 

Look what happened with this disgusting event:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/vets-tour-university-ottawa-pub-crawl-1.3809768  Who on God's green earth thinks this is acceptable?

 

Apparently there are a lot of disturbed people out there today.  Look at the reaction the reporter got from some, just for exposing it:  http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/u-of-o-newspaper-editor-receives-backlash-after-expos%C3%A9-on-pub-crawl-1.3122435

 

Edited October 23, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

 

Did they want someone to feel threatened or did they just feel that this was a missed opportunity to recruit in minority communities? Without knowing who did it and getting their answer how can someone know? 

 

What is intent? 

 

Now, this is hyperbole again but I can't think of an example atm so my apologies. If someone places a confederate flag on their car what do they mean? Do they mean, "Hi! I am a racist!" do they mean, "My ancestors fought for the Confederacy and I take pride in them," or do they mean, "'murica! Heck yeah!" I tend to avoid people who place confederate flags on their car because I find it menacing. Should I take it that way? Not necessarily, but that cannot be helped.

 

Do people have a reason to find campaign slogans directed towards them menacing? They do.

 

You are right.  We just don't know.  I am of the "get facts first and judge after" mindset. 

Someone with a Confederate flag in my area probably is an old hippie who just likes Lynyrd Skynyrd.  I don't actually know anyone who does this. 

 

Maybe somewhere else, it has significant meaning.  

 

I think assumptions are frequently wrong, and frequently the most negative interpretation. 

[Slartibartfast]

You are right.  We just don't know.  I am of the "get facts first and judge after" mindset. 

Someone with a Confederate flag in my area probably is an old hippie who just likes Lynyrd Skynyrd.  I don't actually know anyone who does this. 

 

Maybe somewhere else, it has significant meaning.  

 

I think assumptions are frequently wrong, and frequently the most negative interpretation. 

 

 

SC only recently removed the Confederate flag from the state capital grounds. In reaction there was a LOT of flags in pick ups (I am not making fun of pick ups. I mean they put HUGE flag pole things in the back of their pick ups) both American and Confederate flags. :lol: There was some super old guy that was riding around town with a giant confederate flag on his bicycle.

 

There are a lot of them here, but there are also a lot of descendants of Confederates here. One can go to older cemeteries here and see them all over cemeteries because the graves are of Confederates. But that is kinda my point. Here it is very likely to be harmless and with good intentions. It can be hard to get past the knee-jerk reaction of finding it menacing. I know comparing Trump to the flag is a bit irrational, it can be hard to come up with an example that would invoke such different feelings in people. I am sorry if I am being totally offensive by comparing them.  There are many perfectly lovely people who have strong feelings about it. There are also people who use it to threaten.

 

One cannot judge intent but then one also cannot judge the reaction.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[luuknam]

It's not just a student being talked to in some time between classes. It's also about the culture of the campus, the activities. If your campus is known for singing anti women chants while doing a pub crawl, that's a campus which is hostile to women.

 

If you're part of a hated or vilified group on a campus, your suggestion is that you should scurry from dorm to class and hide in the library in between? 

 

No, I'm saying it's an existing option. Other options are confronting people who say those kinds of things, rolling your eyes, etc. Creating safe spaces isn't going to eliminate male students singing anti women chants while going to/from pubs (pubs aren't usually *on* campus anyway, ime).

[Farrar]

There are real questions about free speech and safe spaces. But I agree with those who said above that the critics of the concept don't seem to have tried to see any value in safe space, perhaps because they've always been able to find safe spaces relatively easily.

 

As Americans, we tend to be proud of free speech in a way sets us apart sometimes. I mean, Jewish lawyers defending the Nazis right to march in Skokie is, in some deep way, part of the American mythos of free speech. It's one of our identity stories about ourselves.

 

But the reality is that speech can become harassment and in the age of the internet, it has, in some ways, made it too easy to find people, to go from nasty comment to threatening action iRL. And I think on a campus, which is relatively small and insular, where students live there and can do all their business and never leave for weeks at a time sometimes... it can be even easier to target a group or move from legitimate disagreement to nastiness to outright harassment and threats.

 

I mean, is doxxing free speech? Is pinning up verses from Leviticus on a student LGBTQ leader's door free speech? Is going to a campus BLM meeting in order to shout over the meeting "All Lives Matter!" free speech? Most of those things are *already* against rules and laws for various reasons - doxxing is harassment, the door is someone's personal space, protesters don't have an absolute right to congregate without a permit at a private meeting, even in a public space like a campus meeting room. But the concept of safe spaces just tries to be a paradigm for emphasizing the need to protect those things from happening. Just like the concept of free speech is a paradigm to emphasize the need to protect speech of all kinds.

 

Time, place, manner of free speech has always been regulated. There are times and places and manners that free speech should be clearly prioritized and made to matter on campus. And times, places, and manners that it shouldn't be allowed. Campuses are homes too - and we wouldn't let someone who was constantly challenging us camp out on our lawn to "further the exchange of ideas" whenever we walked out the door. There has to be a balance. And it's in a university's interest to look for that balance to attract students.

[luuknam]

Also, there was at least one reported situation where the so-called "safe space," provided because someone was giving a speech somewhere else, was supplied with kiddie toys such as crayons, modeling clay, stuffies ....  I mean please.  These are supposed to be adults.

 

Nobody's going to call this out as offensive?

 

I want a safe space where people won't say using art supplies or stuffed animals is childish. I mean, I think it's silly to have a safe space in the first place, and along with that to supply it with anything (bring your own whatever-you-want... besides, isn't only your own 20yo bunny *really* able to comfort you anyway?), but there's no upper age limit for using crayons, modeling clay, or stuffed animals.

[luuknam]

Well, refusal to provide students with a safe room so they can play with playdough while someone they don't agree with speaks on campus is unlikely to meet any standards of offense on the basis of belonging to a particular class.

 

That's not what that was about. SKL said that such a safe space *was* provided, and then SKL proceeded to make fun of the crayons etc (which were also provided). I was merely pointing out that making fun of adults using crayons is offensive.

Edited October 23, 2016 by luuknam

[Slartibartfast]

I don't know of the circumstances involving the clay and stuffed animals. I think expecting to be provided stuffed animals and clay is a bit bizarre. Someone offering clay and stuffed animals because of someone speaking is pretty funny.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[SKL]

Nobody's going to call this out as offensive?

 

I want a safe space where people won't say using art supplies or stuffed animals is childish. I mean, I think it's silly to have a safe space in the first place, and along with that to supply it with anything (bring your own whatever-you-want... besides, isn't only your own 20yo bunny *really* able to comfort you anyway?), but there's no upper age limit for using crayons, modeling clay, or stuffed animals.

 

You are right, how insensitive of me.

 

I do find it offensive - the thought that college women are so fragile that they need protection and play therapy because someone is giving a speech on campus that they are free to NOT attend.

 

Actually the safe space was IMO more of a passive-aggressive protest than anything else.  But still, the idea that this is in any way pro-woman is insulting to mature women, and unhealthy for those less mature.

[Slartibartfast]

I found some descriptions of the incident. It seems that there was going to be a debate about campus sexual assault and rape culture on campus. They also provided trauma counselors.

 

That sounds like it was actually in regard to PSTD and not at all about fluffy animals and clay because someone couldn't cope with big scary ideas. It was set up by a "sexual assault peer educator"

 

Lots of people have PSTD and that doesn't make someone weak or immature.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[SKL]

This is the safe space play therapy incident I'm talking about.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

[Slartibartfast]

Interesting!

 

I do have some issues with peer educators not relevant to this thread  -  in general, this sounds reasonable.

 

Allow the debate to go ahead, provide mental health support for students struggling with the issue. 

 

Seems like a compromise position ? 

 

Also doesn't mean that mental health support must be provided for debates on all topics. 

 

 

Of course, I think in that particular case (it was at Brown University) it seems perfectly reasonable and I think it is a great idea.

 

But no, I don't think mental health support should be offered for *everything* :lol:

[Slartibartfast]

This is the safe space play therapy incident I'm talking about.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

 

That was for rape victims.

 

If you knew what that was why did you joke about it? It was in the first paragraph.

 

 

 

KATHERINE BYRON, a senior at Brown University and a member of its Sexual Assault Task Force, considers it her duty to make Brown a safe place for rape victims, free from anything that might prompt memories of trauma.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[TranquilMind]

There are real questions about free speech and safe spaces. But I agree with those who said above that the critics of the concept don't seem to have tried to see any value in safe space, perhaps because they've always been able to find safe spaces relatively easily.

 

As Americans, we tend to be proud of free speech in a way sets us apart sometimes. I mean, Jewish lawyers defending the Nazis right to march in Skokie is, in some deep way, part of the American mythos of free speech. It's one of our identity stories about ourselves.

 

But the reality is that speech can become harassment and in the age of the internet, it has, in some ways, made it too easy to find people, to go from nasty comment to threatening action iRL. And I think on a campus, which is relatively small and insular, where students live there and can do all their business and never leave for weeks at a time sometimes... it can be even easier to target a group or move from legitimate disagreement to nastiness to outright harassment and threats.

 

I mean, is doxxing free speech? Is pinning up verses from Leviticus on a student LGBTQ leader's door free speech? Is going to a campus BLM meeting in order to shout over the meeting "All Lives Matter!" free speech? Most of those things are *already* against rules and laws for various reasons - doxxing is harassment, the door is someone's personal space, protesters don't have an absolute right to congregate without a permit at a private meeting, even in a public space like a campus meeting room. But the concept of safe spaces just tries to be a paradigm for emphasizing the need to protect those things from happening. Just like the concept of free speech is a paradigm to emphasize the need to protect speech of all kinds.

 

Time, place, manner of free speech has always been regulated. There are times and places and manners that free speech should be clearly prioritized and made to matter on campus. And times, places, and manners that it shouldn't be allowed. Campuses are homes too - and we wouldn't let someone who was constantly challenging us camp out on our lawn to "further the exchange of ideas" whenever we walked out the door. There has to be a balance. And it's in a university's interest to look for that balance to attract students.

Yes, big win for the Jewish attorneys on that Skokie one.  That's who we are as a nation.    This was awhile ago, but anyone who wants to read the background can find it here;  http://www.jta.org/2013/06/20/news-opinion/the-telegraph/nazis-marching-through-skokie

Yes, all of those are free speech, though it is wrong to publish someone's personally identifying information for safety reasons. 

 

Someone cannot camp out on our lawn because it is private property. The street is owned by the city, and that person would be arrested for harassment if he just camped out there and yelled at people.  Most of the problems are already covered by other laws. 

 

I don't see the University as substitute for mom and dad.  YMMV.  I figure you had better be mature enough to handle it before you get there. 

 

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think the second part of her mission statement is unreasonable. 

 

A safe place for rape victims ? Yes. With safe place meaning support, acceptance and solidarity.

 

Free from anything that might prompt memories of trauma ? That's impossible and unreasonable. A university can't function like that.

 

 

Well yeah that sounds pretty crazy but I think the implementation was nice.

[luuknam]

Uh-huh. 

 

It's not really relevant to the conversation, though, is it ?

 

Is your point that anyone can be offended by anything ?

 

I agree that 'offense' is not the same as  'intimidation and harassment'. Personally, as offensive as I find many points of view, and as strongly as I would argue against those views, I am not happy for 'offense' to be a reason to silence someone. 

 

Interestingly, almost nobody on this board agreed with me on that issue when applied to Charlie Hebdo. People are not terribly consistent re the right to cause offence.

 

I'm surprised you haven't realized yet I often go off on tangents. Some of us find coloring etc calming. I find it quite ironic that you think it's a-okay to make fun of adults using crayons and stuffed animals, but if people make fun of lgbt people or w/e it's mean.

 

Intimidation and harassment, btw, are usually already covered under campus policies or laws, so safe spaces are about offense, as far as I can tell (unless they're a temporary safe space for an event like the rape thing).

 

I have no idea what the Charlie Hebdo thing is about. Was that the Parisian cartoonist? I don't think I've read any of the threads about that.

Edited October 23, 2016 by luuknam

[Slartibartfast]

I'm surprised you haven't realized yet I often go off on tangents. Some of us find coloring etc calming. I find it quite ironic that you think it's a-okay to make fun of adults using crayons and stuffed animals, but if people make fun of lgbt people or w/e it's mean.

 

Intimidation and harassment, btw, are usually already covered under campus policies or laws, so safe spaces are about offense, as far as I can tell.

 

I have no idea what the Charlie Hebdo thing is about. Was that the Parisian cartoonist? I don't think I've read any of the threads about that.

 

I don't think anyone actually meant that they were making fun of people who color or anything like that but there being crayons, clay and stuffed animals in reaction to a speaker on a college campus. Once it was realized it was about rape victims Sadie did say she thought it was good.

 

I don't really find coloring comparable to being lgbt since one is a hobby and one is a life but w/e. I agree that coloring can be relaxing.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Slartibartfast]

I have no idea what the Charlie Hebdo thing is about. Was that the Parisian cartoonist? I don't think I've read any of the threads about that.

 

It is a Parisian satirical paper, similar to the Onion.

[Farrar]

Yes, big win for the Jewish attorneys on that Skokie one.  That's who we are as a nation.    This was awhile ago, but anyone who wants to read the background can find it here;  http://www.jta.org/2013/06/20/news-opinion/the-telegraph/nazis-marching-through-skokie

Yes, all of those are free speech, though it is wrong to publish someone's personally identifying information for safety reasons. 

 

Someone cannot camp out on our lawn because it is private property. The street is owned by the city, and that person would be arrested for harassment if he just camped out there and yelled at people.  Most of the problems are already covered by other laws. 

 

I don't see the University as substitute for mom and dad.  YMMV.  I figure you had better be mature enough to handle it before you get there. 

 

So you do think other students should be allowed to post anti-gay rhetoric on a gay student's dorm room door? Or that students who disagree with a group should be able to attend their meetings and shout them down? In the name of free speech? But doxxing isn't okay? Except, it's the free exchange of ideas. Why not publish a student's class schedule so people can go... free exchange with them? If the whole campus is fair game, why not be able to publish their dorm? Or is it only not okay if they live off campus?

 

Universities aren't substitutes for mom and dad. But they do have to be homes for students. My point is that there have to be rules in place that make them homes. If you have to deal with being potentially challenged literally everywhere on campus, that's simply not a home. That's not mom and dad, that's something *parents* don't have to put up with.

 

It's got to be a balance. Sometimes free speech takes priority. In classrooms, in syllabi, on the campus green, in front of the administrative building, in student government meetings, etc. etc. But other times, there have to be limits. In dorm rooms, in student offices, in the LGBTQ space, in the foreign student house, etc. etc. Just because those spaces are owned by the school shouldn't give people the right to barge in and "exercise their free speech."

[Slartibartfast]

Seriously.

 

Is there a long and nefarious history of discrimination, harassment, offense and intimidation towards adults who like to colour in the same way there is towards the LBGTIQ community ? If not, don't make silly comparisons.

 

In any case, I (reluctantly) support the right to offend, even as I despise and abhor some forms of offense. 

 

And you either support it as well, in which case, yes, we can offend adults who colour in, or you don't, in which case you should have no trouble understanding why other groups also wish to be free from offense.

 

 

Your use of extraneous Us in words is offensive to me. I am going to crochet fluffy things to help me feel better.

[luuknam]

In any case, I (reluctantly) support the right to offend, even as I despise and abhor some forms of offense. 

 

And you either support it as well, in which case, yes, we can offend adults who colour in, or you don't, in which case you should have no trouble understanding why other groups also wish to be free from offense.

 

You didn't come across as supporting the right to offend. You came across as supporting the right to offend some groups, but not other groups. Which is why I pointed that out. Apparently it's okay to provide crayons to rape victims but not other adults? What the? Crayons don't solve rape (or anything else).

[Farrar]

Okay, I finally sorted through the crayons...

 

I think you're right Luuknam... If there's going to be "safe spaces" or "therapeutic spaces" then there shouldn't need to be any judgement about what goes in there, no matter who the spaces are for. It's also probably a little bit media defined here... I mean, students had to figure out how to make it a welcoming place once they had the space - fidgets and toys and cookies and milk and so forth are all things that make a place welcoming.

 

On some level, I think the whole "they're adults and they should manage their own spaces!" argument is funny considering that these spaces are typically requested by students, staffed or run by students, and, if there are are crayons or waffles or anything else, those things are chosen by students.

[Slartibartfast]

You didn't come across as supporting the right to offend. You came across as supporting the right to offend some groups, but not other groups. Which is why I pointed that out. Apparently it's okay to provide crayons to rape victims but not other adults? What the? Crayons don't solve rape (or anything else).

 

 

I believe it was the sexual assault advocacy group that was providing the crayons. 

 

I suppose some other group could provide crayons which I may or may not find hilarious at my leisure. I recall Ice-T speaking at my campus and some people were offended cause he uses bad words or something. They didn't need to go off into a private room and color but if they did I would probably laugh about it awhile. "Offensive" is not the same as "trauma"  some times I would find it silly and other times I would think it was a great idea. I would not have any opinion of someone choosing on their own to color at their leisure. 

 

I don't find coloring hilarious but I am just going to laugh if people are going to go cuddle stuffed animals and blow bubbles for just every slightly annoying campus speaker. 

 

I don't care if people sleep with stuffed animals, play with clay, crayons or whatever. Hell I have friends who dress in funny outfits and bop one another with foam swords on the weekend. I like playing violent video games.

 

Who cares what people do to relax?

 

I laughed when it mentioned the puppy videos because "Too Cute" is the single most relaxing show on television. I could literally leave it on "Too Cute!" all day long and be fine with it. :lol: Anyone else love that show?  "Oh no! the tiny puppy can't climb over the garden hose! What's he going to do!??! His mother is saving him!"

Edited October 23, 2016 by Slartibartfast