On Safe Spaces, Trigger Warnings, and Academic Freedom (discussion)

Just recently in a letter to class of 2020 of the University of Chicago the dean of students, John Ellison, wrote: "Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called “trigger warnings,” we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual “safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own."

If you aren't aware, trigger warnings are short warnings before texts or speeches that indicate that some portion of the content may possibly trigger powerful emotional reactions as a consequence of past trauma in a person's life. Generally, these trigger warnings are that of sexual assault or other various forms of abuse that someone may experience in their life (often being the case that a substantial amount of the population has suffered it in silence). It is a simple enough concept: provide warning so that those who may suffer flashbacks or what have you from reading the text know before going in and can choose with that in mind whether or not to read it.

And, generally speaking, safe spaces are spaces intended for particular groups of people so that they can feel safe. These groups often include (and are not limited to) women, people of color, and native peoples. The reason that these safe spaces exist is for a multitude of reasons, ranging from the escape from misogyny and the male gaze to safety from the racism present in the society.

As for academic freedom, it is the freedom to study and pursue whatever one pleases in academia, regardless of its controversy. In a very real sense, the promise of academic freedom that universities bring provide a safe space for both professors and students (as tenure exists in such a way that a tenured professor can write and do as he/she pleases so that the most controversial thing cannot remove them in most cases). It allows for the engagement of ideas beyond what is usually allowed in the common every day world.

As it may already seem apparent, it strikes me as odd and rather ignorant for John Ellison to put academic freedom against these safe spaces. Luckily for us, he provides a reasoning, claiming these safe spaces are spaces for people to retreat from ideas and perspectives that disagree with their own. The logic behind this is that if the people are simply turning away or hiding from those ideas and perspectives, they are not engaging with them as they should be, regardless of the discomfort. As for the rejection of trigger warnings, I am at a loss for any explanation there. It's almost like reading a summary of a text before reading it. Don't know why that is such a problem.

But... there is a reason why these safe spaces exist, similar to why universities have become safe spaces for intellectuals. The reason being, obviously, that it is not safe usually. Notice the groups I mentioned earlier. Women, people of color, native peoples, all of which live in a country that was built on the backs of slaves, has a long history of oppression and genocide, and which is catered to white men. Racism and sexism still exist, even in our universities. This much is true. And this is why these safe spaces arose.

I'll admit, as a white male, I also wouldn't have understood the importance of safe spaces and trigger warnings. Years ago I thought racism and sexism were over, that feminism was useless, and so on. I didn't want to listen to these people. I thought they should just live with how things are. So I understand where John Ellison is coming from here, but that doesn't make it right.

After all, if universities really do want to encourage academic freedom and true free speech, they must provide spaces in which all students feel safe to participate in the discussions. Otherwise what ends up happening is that those students who do feel safe (generally white men in this case) will dominate the discussions and the ideas and perspectives of everyone else will be silenced.

For example, it's no secret that women who post videos about feminism or write articles on feminist issues receive a wealth of sexist comments and attacks on them, rape and death threats, while men generally get more intellectual conversation. What this ends up meaning is that women need to be a lot stronger and confident than men do when participating in the discussion. They have to be very familiar with the block functions of the website they're using and the terms of service should things get worse. Take Leslie Jones (a woman of color) for example, who didn't make a video discussing feminism. She simply starred in the remake of "Ghostbusters" and at first there was the slew of racist and sexist twitter attacks, followed up more recently with a hacking and shutting down of her website and releasing of nude photographs. All of this for starring in a film remake.

With this in mind, it is easy to see why these safe spaces started to appear and why they should continue to appear until the structures that have created their necessity collapse on themselves. It is only for the freedom of all that these should exist, for the freedom of speech demands either security or incredible courage. And in rejecting them, the University of Chicago ends up doing the opposite of their goal. Instead of encouraging free speech and academic freedom, they have chosen to oppress it and silence those who are of different backgrounds and perspectives. We can only hope they realize their mistake one day..

-Zero