The concept of 'Safe Spaces'

[Fragile Bird]

My undergraduate degree is in Journalism, and this story first reported in the paper I was once editor of caught my eye. Two Journalism students at Ryerson were turned away from an event organized by the Racialized Students' Collective because they were white. There have been many comments about what happened since, both pro and anti.

There are two sides to the story: 1) the media has a right to attend public events and report on matters that are in the public interest. The student media needs to cover initiatives that are happening on campus so that we draw attention to them and in turn create awareness (The Ryersonian reported that one student said he was covering the meeting for an assignment). 2) Marginalized groups have a right to claim spaces in the public realm where they can share stories about the discrimination they have faced without judgment and intrusion from anyone else.

.................................

It's not just important, but it's essential, for marginalized groups to have safe spaces on campus to engage with people who understand what they go through. Though this group is funded by Ryerson's student union, it works to serve a particular group and a particular purpose. Many students at Ryerson have encountered racism in their life that is impossible to forget and many are exposed to discrimination on a daily basis. This group and these sort of events allow people of colour to lay bare their experiences and to collectively combat this societal ailment. These spaces are rare places in the world not controlled by individuals who have power, who have privilege.

These spaces, which are forums where minority groups are protected from mainstream stereotypes and marginalization, are crucial to resistance of oppression and we, as a school and as a society, need to respect them.

Earlier in the week a newsroom colleague and I went to an ad-hoc committee meeting on sexual assault policy. When we arrived we were told it was a safe space, and that we would not be able to report on anything that would be discussed in the meeting.

We understood the value of these sorts of events, where people can share their common struggles. Our understanding let us attend and contribute to the conversation, even if we couldn't report about it.

The story: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/aeman-ansari/ethnic-safe-spaces_b_6897176.html

What do you think? Are 'Safe Spaces' a good idea?

[sologdin]

if it's truly public space, then it's a horrible idea ~99% of the time.

[Altherion]

When I clicked on the thread title, I was thinking of something different. This interpretation of "safe spaces" is unambiguously bad. By excluding people of a certain race from "safe spaces", the group organizing the event inevitably implies that such people are a threat. The effect is to foment racial strife both within the included and excluded groups: the included are implicitly told that the excluded are a threat and the excluded are offended because they're denied access to a public space.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

sologdin,

if it's truly public space, then it's a horrible idea ~99% of the time.

Word.

[Fragile Bird]

I have mixed feelings about the concept. After growing up in an era where there were private clubs that excluded people on the basis of sex, race and religion, I'm not crazy about the idea of campus groups springing up that exclude people for the same reasons. I do have sympathy, however, for the argument that there are occasions where people need a place they can feel free from discrimination or harassment.

[Altherion]

It is one thing to declare a space free from discrimination, harassment or perhaps even criticism and negative interactions in general for the duration of the event (the latter is what I was initially thinking) and quite another to mark it off limits to people of a certain race.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I have mixed feelings about the concept. After growing up in an era where there were private clubs that excluded people on the basis of sex, race and religion, I'm not crazy about the idea of campus groups springing up that exclude people for the same reasons. I do have sympathy, however, for the argument that there are occasions where people need a place they can feel free from discrimination or harassment.

Of course, what "free from discrimination or harassment" is actually a euphemism for in the context we're talking about is "free from the presence of people of a particular skin color," or specifically in this case, "free from the presence of people with white skin."

And of course, the problem is, "skin color" is not and never should be, considered to be a proxy for "discrimination" or "harassment."

[Fragile Bird]

Nestor - I was actually thinking of support groups for women who have been sexually assaulted under the 'harassment' heading. Being able to speak about fears and worries without men being present or the event being reported.

Do you think that is acceptable?

And why would it not be acceptable for students of colour, many of whom would be immigrants or foreign students, being able to meet and talk about how to cope with racial prejudice? The article discusses the fact that many white people will never face what these students encounter every day.

Racialized people experience systemic discrimination on a daily basis, on many levels, and in ways that white people may never encounter. The whole point of these safe spaces is to remove that power dynamic. That's partly what makes them spaces for healing.

The presence of any kind of privilege puts unnecessary pressure on the people of colour to defend any anger or frustrations they have, to fear the outcome of sharing their stories. The attendees are trying to move forward by supporting each other and they should not have to defend themselves, they should not fear the consequences of raising their voices.

Are the thoughts the author of the article, a non-white student, bogus? Misdirected? Wrong?

[Arkhangel]

Having read the original article and the article responding to it, it doesn't seem as though anyone is questioning the need for safe spaces, just the incongruity of advertising something as both a public event and a safe space. If it's a public event, anyone should be allowed to attend provided they abide by the usual standards of politeness and respect. If it's intended to be a safe space, it should be a members-only event for the Racialised Students' Collective.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Nestor - I was actually thinking of support groups for women who have been sexually assaulted under the 'harassment' heading. Being able to speak about fears and worries without men being present or the event being reported.

Do you think that is acceptable?

And why would it not be acceptable for students of colour, many of whom would be immigrants or foreign students, being able to meet and talk about how to cope with racial prejudice? The article discusses the fact that many white people will never face what these students encounter every day.

Are the thoughts the author of the article, a non-white student, bogus? Misdirected? Wrong?

FB:

I think that people within a private group should be allowed to set whatever guidelines for admission to the group that they want, regardless of whether those guidelines for admission are discriminatory or not - whether that discrimination is based on race (as in this case), sex (as in your example), religion, etc. I do not, however, think that a university student group, meeting on university property, should be allowed to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, etc. If a campus support group was set up for victims of sexual violence, it should be open to all victims of sexual violence, regardless of whether they're male or female.

[Fragile Bird]

Nestor, I think I disagree about the support groups for victims of sexual assault. Well, at least in an ideal world I would like to see four groups being available, one each for men and women, one for both sexes, one or more for various LGBT groups, but that is likely unrealistic. Probably groups for women and an all-inclusive group are the more likely scenarios, simply because most assaults are committed against women. But if an LGBT support group wants to meet on campus behind closed doors, I don't have a problem with that.

But overall, I am uncomfortable with groups that exclude people on the basis of race, religion or gender.

[Galactus]

Marking a private or members-only gathering as a safe space is one thing, but a public event is well... Public. That has certain consequences and responsibilities, and means it is largely contradictory to the purpose of a "safe space".

[The Killer Snark]

They are a terrible idea. To suggest to anyone that their presence is not wanted because of issues with their colour or gender is inherent prejudice.

[karaddin]

This board is a public place, yet we have threads that have been designated safe spaces and are more heavily moderated (or at least *a* thread). I support them, but them I'm a minority that feels the need for them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karradin,

But, a message board is somewhat different. The thread can be read without participating. The "safe space" designation for a public meeting would exclude people for having the wrong skin color, gender, sex, or religion. That's awfully fraught precident.

[Altherion]

This board is a public place, yet we have threads that have been designated safe spaces and are more heavily moderated (or at least *a* thread). I support them, but them I'm a minority that feels the need for them.

Again, there is a difference between requiring people to be nicer in a specific location and excluding a group from a public place based on race/gender/etc. I don't think we have any threads which exclude people like that.

[Malik Ambar]

This makes no sense. Why should white people be excluded from a meeting of people of colour discussing racism ? (not white myself and can understand some of the point of views who support this action but still ). The assault victims one too I don't understand : do you mean to imply that should such a group meet and discuss, only assault victims and select counselors be allowed (in which case, why should any sort of segregation take place?) or only women be allowed for certain events ? (if so, again why?)

[Malik Ambar]

This board is a public place, yet we have threads that have been designated safe spaces and are more heavily moderated (or at least *a* thread). I support them, but them I'm a minority that feels the need for them.

I understand your point, but moderation is different from outright exclusion

[Castel]

Having read the original article and the article responding to it, it doesn't seem as though anyone is questioning the need for safe spaces, just the incongruity of advertising something as both a public event and a safe space. If it's a public event, anyone should be allowed to attend provided they abide by the usual standards of politeness and respect. If it's intended to be a safe space, it should be a members-only event for the Racialised Students' Collective.

Leaning half-way between this and Nestor's position.

I'm sympathetic but don't really know if I'm being consistent.

This makes no sense. Why should white people be excluded from a meeting of people of colour discussing racism ? (not white myself and can understand some of the point of views who support this action but still ). The assault victims one too I don't understand : do you mean to imply that should such a group meet and discuss, only assault victims and select counselors be allowed (in which case, why should any sort of segregation take place?) or only women be allowed for certain events ? (if so, again why?)

Presumably because it's about the experiences of a certain group of people who will react differently when people who don't share that particular set of experiences (or even the possibility of them) are around.

Again, there is a difference between requiring people to be nicer in a specific location and excluding a group from a public place based on race/gender/etc. I don't think we have any threads which exclude people like that.

Well, one of the benefits of places like this is that you can defacto exclude people.That was one of the charges laid against Atheism+'s safe spaces; there were so many issues that you could end up banned for anything. The more tightly-knit or insular the group is the easier to find the outsiders.

At a public event though, you have to tell people to their face to leave.

[sologdin]

board is private space offered as public accommodation, no? i.e., not really a public space at all?