No Place for “Safe Space”

Administrators at Yale University sent a communique to students prior to Halloween requesting that they refrain from wearing costumes that other students might find offensive. When a member of the faculty at Yale penned a reply suggesting that students at one of the nation’s premiere institutions of higher learning did not need any guidance in dressing up for Halloween, she was quickly rebuffed by a form letter signed by hundreds of students. That letter even called for the faculty member’s resignation. Let me see if I understand this — a group of college age students at an American university don’t think they possess the necessary judgment to make their own decisions about what to wear on Halloween? If that’s the case, kids, sell your used books and move back in with your parents because you’re not ready for college and you’re certainly not ready for what awaits you after.

This story has been referenced often lately in the debate about so called “safe spaces” on college campuses. Judith Shulevitz of the New York Times described them as “an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being ‘bombarded’ by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints.” Originally conceived as gatherings of like-minded people who agreed not to ridicule one another so that ideas could be debated or explored (think feminism or LGBT issues) without the threat of aggression from any party, the concept has apparently morphed into a space where one is to be kept free from exposure to any ideas or concepts that they might find uncomfortable. Instead of a safe place for debate, safe spaces have become devoid of any debate whatsoever. As originally intended, safe spaces were and are probably a good idea for young people just getting their footing in the competitive space for ideas. The concept as it is currently being applied on some campuses has become something different, however.

On the campus of the University of Missouri recently student protests surrounding the issue of race relations on campus and the administration’s inadequate response to same drew national media attention. Ultimately, the university president and chancellor both resigned over the controversy. When a student photographer on assignment for ESPN attempted to get photos of a tent city that had been erected by protestors on the quad at Mizzou, he was blocked by student protestors who had declared the area a “safe space,” to be kept free of media seeking to cover the story. In a videotaped confrontation, one faculty member who was apparently helping to organize the gathering is heard to call for some “muscle” to help eject the student reporter. Apparently the students found the added attention to be too much. They wanted to exercise their First Amendment rights, but were unwilling or unable to put their ideas into the public sphere via the media — the very outlets which brought their issue into the public consciousness in the first place. One student was heard to say to members of the media, “We’re calling the police because you aren’t respecting us.” This precious child has reached college without even understanding what the function of the police is in our society. She thinks they exist to ensure she receives the respect she thinks she’s due. Send her home and put her in front of some educational programming with some crackers and a juice box. She’s not yet ready for the intellectual exercise college should be. “Safe spaces” exercised in this way are not erected to protect free speech. Instead, they could ultimately sign its the death warrant.

The move away from debate on our campuses has been brewing for some time. This past spring a number of planned speakers backed out of engagements to speak at college commencement exercises over student protests opposed to the choice of speaker. Speakers on all sides of the political spectrum fell victim to this trend including Condoleeza Rice and Eric Holder.[1] Often the reason for the push back on the part of students is that they disagree with some position the prospective speaker has taken or with their political ideology. The sentiment is, “I don’t dig what you might have to say, so I’m not going to listen to you.” This level of small mindedness among soon-to-be college graduates should worry us all.

As the father of a college student, I am not at all in favor of the university walling off my child from uncomfortable or challenging ideas. I am spending no small amount on her education and I expect it to prepare her to compete in the workplace and beyond when she graduates. If it doesn’t contribute to that end, in my opinion, it will end up being a waste of money. Her college experience is about expanding her mind; exposing her to new ideas so she can decide for herself what she thinks as well as what she believes. I expect her to be challenged. I expect her to defend her positions. I expect her to learn to debate. And I expect her to grow as a result.

Students crying out for these safe spaces, in effect want space set apart where no ideas contrary to their own are allowed to enter. They want cocoons where barriers to entry are erected against any ideological Bogeyman that might come calling. This concept flies in the face of what colleges should be offering our students — broad exposure to information and practice at the art of forming an opinion and defending it. The point of college should be to expand their intellect, not to allow it to contract.

We do students a disservice if we give in to their demands for safe spaces. If their ideas have merit and they have the ability to articulate them, then those ideas will survive. Good ideas don’t need protection from competition. These students need to be taught that. The world that they will find after graduation is full of competition — for jobs, for opportunity, even for mates. These children who grew up expecting trophies for participation and to be lauded for even mediocre achievement are not ready for a global economy. They are going to get eaten alive.

So why am I writing about this topic in a Homeland Security forum? Because this is a national resilience issue. Individuals not prepared to take care of themselves become a liability to society rather than an asset. Citizens unprepared for competition in the battleground of ideas are not prepared to meet the challenges that a rising China or resurgent Russia present. They will fare poorly when they must stand at a podium on the world stage (or in someone’s kitchen) and explain why democracy is superior to dictatorship or why the murderous proclivities of ISIS will ultimately prove bankrupt. In the battle of ideas, America needs to be represented by intellectual heavyweights. But our colleges are likely going to turn out lightweights, at best.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-condoleezza-rice-commencement-controversy-20140503-story.html

.godaF��I6h

��P�2p