Safe spaces are an interesting concept that is a place or environment where a person or category of people can feel confident that they won’t be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any emotional or physical harm. Many people are drawn to a safe space because the spaces that should be safe for them—such as home, school, community—are not safe for them and they want to be around people are in a similar situation as them. There is also making a publicly occupied space such as a school campus, a recreational center, and such areas a safe space—as a well to reassure the occupants that they will be safe during their time there. The basic structure of a safe space is positive, but only when it occupies a space and isn’t occupying someone’s whole life.
Although, I know I should focus on the article by Heller, I found his piece to offer too many viewpoints and opinions and different facts of similar problems where I found myself unable to coherently focus on a topic. I decided the only way I could write without feeling overwhelmed was finding someone speaking about the same issue, but a little bit narrower.
A few years ago, Van Jones, a CNN political contributor, spoke at David Axelrod’s institute of Politics at the University of Chicago. During this 80 minute discussion, that included S. E. Cupp, Axelrod brought up that he had hosted President Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, the week before that discussion. Students protested the event, saying having him on campus normalized the Trump Administration. Axelrod, who disagreed with the students’ outcry, asked for Jones’ opinion on the protest.
Van Jones proposes two idea about safe spaces—a positive and a negative one. There’s the idea that a campus should be a safe space that is free from sexual harassment or physical abuse, or any kind of hate speech that’s targeted—this is the normal definition of a safe space and is in no way harmful and should be adopted. Then there’s the idea that these student are being “safe ideologically” and think they need to feel good all the time—almost putting a blanket over their eyes to anything they disagree with. Jones’ explains that he doesn’t like the second idea as it assumes that we don’t care about people’s emotional safety and wellbeing. Instead of criticizing those who want safety, we should be pushing people to be stronger. Passionately, he says, “I’m not going to pave the jungle for you. Put on some boots, and learn how to deal with adversity. I’m not going to take all the weights out of the gym; that’s the whole point of the gym. This is the gym. You can’t live on a campus where people say stuff you don’t like?!”
He goes on to speak about his parents and other older black Americans who dealt with far worse adversities such as beatings and dogs, but nowadays people cannot deal with a mean tweet. Which is true, there is still adversity today, but it not as nearly bad as it was fifty or sixty years ago. All these students grew up with President Obama as their first president they knew and grew up believing times have changes. So any instances where that shiny optimism cracks, like Tamir Rice or the transgender military ban, it’s really disappointing. But, then again these students have grown up dealing with a mass shooting every week in their schools, their churches, their concerts, or their supermarkets. And with that we have tried to harden ourselves because it hasn’t stopped and we’ve learned to get used to it—which makes us furious. So are these students still lacking adversity and hardship?
Continuing on with more passion Jones says, “You are creating a kind of liberalism that the minute it crosses the street into the real world is not just useless, but obnoxious and dangerous. I want you to be offended every single day on this campus. I want you to be deeply aggrieved and offended and upset, and then to learn how to speak back. Because that is what we need from you in these communities.”
I do agree that students need to hear and absorb and deal with ideas that aren’t similar to their own. It’s one of the ways to truly gain intelligence. How can you learn if you stay in a bubble of what you believe if you can’t understand the things you don’t believe? But, I also agree that the students, who pay insurmountable funds to attend college, should have some sort of say in what their campus does. And if they fight back on certain things that they don’t like, does that truly mean they are weak and ignorant—closing their eyes and ears to all things scary?
The students were protesting that the school was normalizing the Trump administration—an administration that unarguably promotes hatred and negative messages—and as a student, I don’t know if I would want my school to give a platform and allow someone that took part in that hatred. It would have been different if a professor played a video of someone from Trump’s white house to spark discussion or if a student-run republican group invited him to speak at one of their events. I feel like it’s even different than bringing a member of Bush’s cabinet because I don’t think it’s an issue of disagreeing with political ideologies, but more about possible the inflammation or spreading of a negative rhetoric. But, then again, if we don’t listen to such negative rhetoric, how would we ever understand to combat it? It’s an interesting balancing game that is going to take a while to truly understand.
Van Jones’ talk: Van Jones’ Excellent Metaphors About the Dangers of Ideology Safety, Jon Haidt, https://heterodoxacademy.org/van-jones-excellent-metaphors/
E367: Writing and Diversity 
Jennifer,
I know that I should censure you for not responding directly to Heller, but I find your “dodge” here really interesting and productive. I’m writing this before I’ve had a chance to listen to Van Jones’s talk, but I find your summary of what he has to say powerful. I’m particularly drawn to his statement—”I want you to be deeply aggrieved and offended and upset, and then to learn how to speak back”—because that’s pretty much my goal for this course, too. How do we take people we disagree strongly with seriously enough to engage them in real conversation? The example of Corey Lewandowski is telling: On the one hand, I feel like, what could this person actually have to say of import to me? But on the other hand, if I simply write him off as beyond the pale, then I seem to be retreating into my own “safe space” (or as Pratt would say, “safe house”).
Here’s my one ray of hope: If you just follow the guidelines of identity politics, Corey Lewandoski and I should be in complete agreement. We’re both middle-class, straight, cisgender, white males. And yet I feel no sense of identification with him. So what accounts for that?
This was a terrific, slanted response to the reading, Jennifer. Thank you,
Joe
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jennifer,
Your piece was awesome.
I’m glad that you incorporated the Van Jones speech, it really helped bring your piece together and emphasize the points you were trying to make. I’m also (weirdly) glad that you weren’t able to come to a proper conclusion about being sensitive on college campuses etc, because truthfully, there IS no conclusion or proper way to go about this.
I agree with you that students are paying literally thousands of dollars to attend colleges and that they most definitely have the right to demand what they’re exposed to, at least a little bit. I also agree with you that students need to be exposed to things, people, and ideas that they don’t like or don’t agree with because that’s what this world is about. If you aren’t exposed to anything outside of your own bubble or comfort zone, how will you develop your own ideas, think for yourself, and talk to humans on a daily basis? Sadly, life is not filled with people who only agree with what you have to say… and honestly, it shouldn’t be sad or disheartening, it should be eye opening and thought provoking.
If anything, discussing topics with others might just solidify your own point of view and make you more comfortable speaking about what you believe in.
Trying to please everyone is difficult, especially in today’s world. The most we can do is be respectful towards others… and by “others”, I mean not only people who think like you, but EVERYONE.
LikeLike
Hi Jennifer!
First off, I love your title. I think that perfectly describes the meaning behind these safe spaces and what they serve to accomplish. I specifically agree with your second to last paragraph in that the only way to gain intelligence is to expose yourself to different ideas and viewpoints, rather than staying close-minded and in a bubble per say. I feel that I have seen many safe spaces in our campus alone, specifically among students that stay with other students that look or speak like them, which takes away from the entire reason in which we are in an institution like this. There is no other time or place that an individual can be completely submerged in population with diverse viewpoints and backgrounds and there is something great that can be gained from that. By sticking to these safe spaces and being afraid to venture out in to things that are different from what we are use to, we are causing a great disadvantage to ourselves and denying ourselves the opportunity to learn and grow.
LikeLike
Jennifer,
I am very intrigued by your response to this piece. I was especially drawn to your rhetorical question in the seventh paragraph of your writing. You asked how one can learn if they are always in their bubble of what they find comfortable. I agree with your idea that, in order to gain intelligence, once needs to open themselves up to new ideas, even if they contradict one’s core beliefs. Though it is uncomfortable and frustrating, in order to understand the “other side” one must listen to what they have to say first. However, like you mention, just because one listens to the ideas of another does not mean they cannot critique or disagree with these ideas. Understanding something and agreeing with it are two different things entirely. I think this distinction needs to be made more clear in order for people who disagree with each other to show one another the basic levels of respect they are entitled to.
LikeLike
Jennifer
I also found Heller’s piece a bit unclear in his opinion and a bit more factual. So, I am glad you bring up the Van Jones incident. I find this very relatable because I too can find negative and positive perspectives on the “safe spaces”.
I think young students have a great mentality; they witnessed progression in America and want to continue the cycle. This is the type of motivation and activism that this country needs. However, my fear is that that might be getting pushed to an unrealistic place.
Additionally, the idea about “normalizing” the Trump campaign seems a bit ironic to me. Isn’t a political campaign already somewhat “normalized” if it is about someone who is running for president? Isn’t’ preventing a specific campaign similar to taking away one’s freedom of speech? It is a very tough topic, but something to think about.
LikeLike