Decoding the new language of protest
College students shared their thoughts — now you can add yours
University communities across the nation, both public and private, small and large, have faced a new wave of advocacy fueled by a more diverse student population.
Take a look at the past school year.
The issues include racial equality, sexual assault prevention, Middle East policy, LGBT advocacy and mental health awareness, but all of the debates are using similar terminology to frame the growing dialogues on campus.
For the past few months, I’ve been emailing, calling and interviewing student leaders and activists on college campuses in the Washington, D.C., area.
The goal: to define the new lexicon of terms used in these debates.
I interviewed nine students for the final piece. We talked about safe spaces, trigger warnings, cultural appropriation and micro aggression.
It’s the new language of protest, but what does it mean?
What is a safe space? When is it needed? Should professors provide trigger warnings? What are trigger warnings for? Essentially, what do these words mean in definition and practice?
The story started a conversation about these definitions and the developments on campus. Readers submitted their own answers, shared thoughts in the comments and discussed the trend on Tumblr. Not everyone agreed on what these terms meant.
Here is some of the feedback we’ve received. We hope it will further the ongoing discussion.
Regarding the dialogue on campus:
“The modern college campus is essentially an artificial bubble of political correctness…”
The modern college campus is essentially an artificial bubble of political correctness where these concepts of “trigger warnings” and “microaggressions” are taken seriously. The purpose of college is to prepare students for the real world, college officials are doing the opposite by teaching newly independent adults that the world is supposed to cater to their feelings rather than them learning to deal with discomfort.
— Davin Laskin, from Winter Park, Florida
“The people being coddled are the older generations and critics who want a free pass to say racist, sexist, homophobic, and discriminatory things.”
It’s not coddling to ask for better treatment from your university and the students in it. The people being coddled are the older generations and critics who want a free pass to say racist, sexist, homophobic, and discriminatory things under the banner of “free expression.”
— Liz Glaser from Longmont, Colorado
Regarding Safe Spaces:
“Who decides what is offensive? Who decides what’s safe? In my mind, we don’t need safe spaces for discourse; we need respectful spaces.”
A space needs to be adequately suited for discussion to discuss social issues. However, my experience with safe spaces is that “safe” is defined by the thinnest-skinned people. Any discourse must first past through this screen of “safety,” that filters out any contentious or potentially offensive ideas — but who decides what is offensive? Who decides what’s safe? In my mind, we don’t need safe spaces for discourse; we need respectful spaces.
— Samuel Pearson from Vermillion, South Dakota
“People should be able to express their thoughts and opinions without being attacked or demonized.”
People should be able to express their thoughts and opinions without being attacked or demonized. I think “safe spaces” exist in one’s mind; it is the understanding that others have the right to hold positions different from me, but that doesn’t give me the right to shut them down.
— Liz Masiello from Gaithersburg, Maryland
“Safe spaces are really another word for fairness and sensitivity, something which is necessary in an enlightened environment…”
My first instinct is to say no, what you need is self-respect. But after reading the sensible commentary of the proponents of safe spaces in this article, I think it’s necessary to revise that opinion slightly: safe spaces are really another word for fairness and sensitivity, something which is necessary in an enlightened environment, and critical in certain contexts. I still have reservations about the nomenclature of safe spaces, because it seems like it would tend to institutionalize notions of good guys and bad guys.
— Ivan Avramovic from Oakton, Virginia
“People are less likely to speak out or disagree in a ‘safe space’.”
Safe Spaces are not needed to discuss social issues, and in my experience often stifle meaningful conversation. Multiple times I’ve noticed that people are less likely to speak out or disagree in a “safe space” because we know that if you go against the grain, you will be ostracized.
— Simon Vazquez from Houston, Texas
Regarding Trigger Warnings:
“As a former soldier who probably has some mild PTSD, I abhor trigger warnings.”
As a former soldier who probably has some mild PTSD, I abhor trigger warnings. To me, trigger warnings only serve to allow people to ignore what should not be ignored. Recognizing that others have had similar experiences and have successfully gotten help should be applauded and serve to encourage others to do the same, as well as end the stigma of seeking mental health for their troubles.
— James Oliver from Arlington, Virginia
“Exposure without warning can literally disable them, sometimes for days.”
No one is saying not to discuss sensitive issues. Rape, abuse, violence, and other hard topics need to be unpacked and discussed in order to make progress. But some people have psychological issues related to these topics — rape survivors, soldiers who have seen combat, etc. Exposure without warning can literally disable them, sometimes for days. With trigger warnings, they can prepare themselves, or decide that now isn’t the time.
— Katie Morison from Fairfax, Virginia
What are your thoughts regarding the terms and the discussions found on college campuses? Share your perspective in the comments below.
