The concept of 'Safe Spaces'

[Castel]

Journalist defends excluding people from public spaces:

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6897176

From the article:

She is quite eloquent but is she not defending pre-judging individuals based upon their appearance? Or, is there a legitimate point to be made that some people cannot speak freely while in the presence of others they see as "oppressors"?

You don't even need to call them oppressors Scott. People who don't share your experiences and who would naturally come from the demographic that wouldn't notice or actively causes the problem is enough to make anyone a bit uncomfortable.

It's a bit hypocritical isn't it? To have an event that facilitates the exchange of personal anecdotes about facing racism and discrimination, and then, exclude two students on a prejudice--informed by their skin color--is counterintuitive.

Not at all. It's pretty intuitive. The entire problem is that it sounds reasonable yet there's no clearl line past which is stops being reasonable and it becomes the echo-chamber everyone here fears.

[Summah]

I think fears of an echo chamber are overblown for the most part. I can go into a safe space yes, but every time I'm out in public I'm a visible minority and I am treated differently because of that. People frequently let me know exactly what they think of me by how they treat me, which is something that I believe happens far less frequently to those who are more privileged. And it's quite difficult to manage to conduct one's entire life in safe spaces, because at some point one will likely need to go to the grocery store, doctors office etc.

It's quite clear that the majority has no idea about the experience of someone like me, and speaking to them about it often leads to them defending, minimizing or excusing blatantly *ist things that happened or were said to me. That doesn't mean I won't try to have those conversations, but I don't know how useful they are.

[AverageGuy]

I can go into a safe space yes, but every time I'm out in public I'm a visible minority and I am treated differently because of that.

This particular scenario though is a public space that was designated as a safe space.

Even in public spaces, I don't think there's a problem with moderation. Not sure how I feel about exclusion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Summah,

So, a Jewish group in a public space should be able to exclude all non-Jews to create a "safe space" in public to discuss anti-Jewish experiences?

[The Killer Snark]

Therein lies the problem. By bonding together people who feel outwith the majority to the point they are actually tacitly saying they feel victimised by exclusion of people from majorities, they in fact further their insularity, as well as tacitly appearing to demand special privilege, which is always a touchy subject among the hard Right and among libertarians. My own view is that excusionism should only be justified on a member's only basis by the hiring out of spaces on a function level; otherwise the best thing you can do is post notices that threatening hostility towards the speakers won't be tolerated and hope enough of the people you want to turn up will do so, because it is a public space.

[karaddin]

Summah,

So, a Jewish group in a public space should be able to exclude all non-Jews to create a "safe space" in public to discuss anti-Jewish experiences?

Yes. There is still a fuck ton of awful horrid anti Semitism around. I was blind to it for a long time because it makes zero sense to me, but it's there. I have no issues with the scenario described.

And the "living in an echo chamber" thing is so ridiculous as to be straw man. You can't live in a safe space. I've been laid up in bed for 2.5 months and I still get it, with a trans friend talking to me about being harassed by drunk 18yos then propositioned by then at a kebab place. A refuge to briefly get away from it doesn't lead to an echo chamber.

[sologdin]

yeah, 'echo chamber,' by which metaphor is meant, i think, construction of a monologic imperative, is a risk at all times in any communicative space, public or not.

the problem with exclusion in public space is that is an expropriation, whereby public space is converted to private use. that's a monologia--but FFS everywhere else is a monologia going the other way. the objection accordingly should be that no one is permitted to expropriate public space for exclusionary purposes. i sympathize with the ends--in this case--but maybe not so much in the next case.

[Relic]

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

Yup.

[AverageGuy]

yeah, 'echo chamber,' by which metaphor is meant, i think, construction of a monologic imperative

That's the "echo," but I would include the "chamber" and define the metaphor as construction of a monologic imperative in a confined space, with the implication that open spaces are meant to promote dialogue.

In this case, however, the more I look at the details, the less I think the exclusion matters. The student union is technically "public" space, but we're talking about what's probably one of few big places on campus which student groups can reserve for a larger audience. If this was to discuss matters of public interest, address specific issues and how to deal with them, exclusion is counterintuitive as sooner or later you have to engage the other side, and a larger event is a good place to start. However, the more I look into this, the more it seems like this was a semi-private support group. In that case, they reserved the space, and I don't think that it happening to be at the student union matters too much.

[Castel]

That's the "echo," but I would include the "chamber" and define the metaphor as construction of a monologic imperative in a confined space, with the implication that open spaces are meant to promote dialogue.

In this case, however, the more I look at the details, the less I think the exclusion matters. The student union is technically "public" space, but we're talking about what's probably one of few big places on campus which student groups can reserve for a larger audience. If this was to discuss matters of public interest, address specific issues and how to deal with them, exclusion is counterintuitive as sooner or later you have to engage the other side, and a larger event is a good place to start. However, the more I look into this, the more it seems like this was a semi-private support group. In that case, they reserved the space, and I don't think that it happening to be at the student union matters too much.

Question: I assume that anyone can reserve space if they have a reason and they're not using it for something contrary to the university's policies. Wouldn't this be contrary to those policies though?

It's not so much that no group can be exclusionary but that they can't exclude people on the basis of skin color (or say..sex) no?

[TrackerNeil]

Nice topic.

To me, safe spaces are less about who attends them and more about who controls them. A safe space is, in my view, a place where the viewpoints and frames of reference of a typically marginalized demographic are not fringe, as they are in mainstream society, but are instead the norm. I don't think it's wrong for people outside that demographic to enter these spaces, but they should do so with humility and a desire to learn, or at least to listen respectfully. (Ideally, they should also be invited to enter, and not there simply because they thought attending would be a kick.) As long as the dedication of the safe space remains unchanged, the space is intact.

The fact that these white students were attending with an intent to report shades this situation a bit differently, but then again perhaps it would have been wiser to allow them to stay and listen and, hopefully, report accurately. In my view, the more we minorities can do in terms of outreach the better.**

** Note that I'm not saying it is the job of a minority to educate, but when faced with the opportunity to increase understanding, I almost always take it.

[Fragile Bird]

Nice topic.

To me, safe spaces are less about who attends them and more about who controls them. A safe space is, in my view, a place where the viewpoints and frames of reference of a typically marginalized demographic are not fringe, as they are in mainstream society, but are instead the norm. I don't think it's wrong for people outside that demographic to enter these spaces, but they should do so with humility and a desire to learn, or at least to listen respectfully. (Ideally, they should also be invited to enter, and not there simply because they thought attending would be a kick.) As long as the dedication of the safe space remains unchanged, the space is intact.

The fact that these white students were attending with an intent to report shades this situation a bit differently, but then again perhaps it would have been wiser to allow them to stay and listen and, hopefully, report accurately. In my view, the more we minorities can do in terms of outreach the better.**

** Note that I'm not saying it is the job of a minority to educate, but when faced with the opportunity to increase understanding, I almost always take it.

Well put.

[Gneisenau]

Some people suggest that a space is an echo chamber for their views, but isn't mainstream society an echo chamber for a certain view ? I go on reddit sometimes, and people go and complain that a women's sub is an echo chamber for women, missing out on the irony that reddit is an echo chamber for young white heterosexual males.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Gnei,

I think any place can become an echo chamber. I think seeking out and engaging in polite discussion with people who hold opinions different from your own is important.

That said I do think you make a good point. Not every moment needs to be a dialogue. People do need places to vent.

It, however, is my opinion that excluding people from public places based upon their appearance is the wrong way to go about achieving that goal.

[Egalitarianism Always]

Can a public space become a private one? That is in fact the whole premise of private property, if reasoning for each claim to private property is outweighed by reasoning against the claim, then the private property claim is invalid.

Every non living resource is publicly owned, just because someone's great great great great grandpappy staked a claim to a resource doesn't mean it is his family's from to the end of eternity.

It's actually why the idea of a omnipotent omniscient God caught hold in the Roman Empire, invented impregnable foundations to a claimed resource.

In a safe space non radicalized non lying observers from the media are in my opinion completely valid as observers, radicalized media such as Fox News or the Daily Mail are not, as they are not fair and non lying observers, they use the idea of freedom to inhibit others freedom.

Anyone who prohibits a representative from a more fair and balanced free media party who is known to not employ lying such as Fox News or the Daily Mail.

[felice]

The "public space" issue is a bit of a red herring, I think. We're not talking about a venue that anybody would raise an eyebrow at being restricted to, say, paying customers for a concert, are we? Or a club meeting restricted to members of said club? While excluding people based on things like race or gender is generally a bad thing, I think it's reasonable to make an exception when the exclusionary factor is the whole point of the group. Eg a Song of Ice and Fire discussion group that excluded women would be unjustifiable, but one that excluded people who haven't read the books would be quite reasonable.

[karaddin]

To me the fact that they were journalism students, and one intending to use a gathering like that for their assignment, is justification for their exclusion if you see it in a support group light. I really disagree with the idea that an event held in a public venue is automatically public as such and perhaps that's where these objections seem over zealous to me.

[Galactus]

To me the fact that they were journalism students, and one intending to use a gathering like that for their assignment, is justification for their exclusion if you see it in a support group light. I really disagree with the idea that an event held in a public venue is automatically public as such and perhaps that's where these objections seem over zealous to me.

According to the article the issue wasn't that it was held in a public venue, but rathr that it was advertised as a public event.

[Theda Baratheon]

Nice topic.

To me, safe spaces are less about who attends them and more about who controls them. A safe space is, in my view, a place where the viewpoints and frames of reference of a typically marginalized demographic are not fringe, as they are in mainstream society, but are instead the norm. I don't think it's wrong for people outside that demographic to enter these spaces, but they should do so with humility and a desire to learn, or at least to listen respectfully. (Ideally, they should also be invited to enter, and not there simply because they thought attending would be a kick.) As long as the dedication of the safe space remains unchanged, the space is intact.

The fact that these white students were attending with an intent to report shades this situation a bit differently, but then again perhaps it would have been wiser to allow them to stay and listen and, hopefully, report accurately. In my view, the more we minorities can do in terms of outreach the better.**

** Note that I'm not saying it is the job of a minority to educate, but when faced with the opportunity to increase understanding, I almost always take it.

Yep. I agree with all of this.

[sologdin]

The "public space" issue is a bit of a red herring, I think. We're not talking about a venue that anybody would raise an eyebrow at being restricted to, say, paying customers for a concert, are we? Or a club meeting restricted to members of said club? While excluding people based on things like race or gender is generally a bad thing, I think it's reasonable to make an exception when the exclusionary factor is the whole point of the group. Eg a Song of Ice and Fire discussion group that excluded women would be unjustifiable, but one that excluded people who haven't read the books would be quite reasonable.

battered women's or rape crisis shelter, say, even where 100% publicly funded, very reasonably excludes men, i suspect, precisely because the mere presence of male persons may inflict or aggravate injury, even when persons subject to exclusion are not the original offenders. that's different, i think, than a feminist group commandeering the village bowling green for a consciousness raising vagina monologia that only works if it's no-men. this latter does not act on a principle that i'd elevate to universal law. this is not to say that there should be no no-men vagina monologias (i can imagine a set of facts, i think, wherein this is useful); but it is qualitatively different than the exclusionary practice of the shelter.

if the argument becomes 'oh no the feminist is afflicted by the everyday presence of men and reinjured thereby because quotidian patriarchy &c&c&c,' then fine, we pop this person in a behavioral health clinic, no men, until the patriarchal crisis is overcome. i.e., it is a medical-psychiatric event. this is of course no one's actual argument, and is absurd. i do not understand the safe space thesis to mean that the mere presence of the adversary will trigger a medical-psychiatric event. rather, it seems as though the intent is to protect the margin from the tendency of the center to shout down the former simply by virtue of its majoritarian status, by mere operation in due course, if not necessarily always by intentional malfeasance by adversaries. i get that. it's very reasonable.

and so i have no objection to being excluded from gatherings of groups who consider me as marked by the signs of their historical adversary (white, male, straight, cisgender, non-immigrant citizen of the imperial center, not impoverished, not disabled, &c), who exclude me, say, as part of the condition of their own organization's possibility. that's kickass. knock your lights out. and, yaknow, to be candid, as if i could muster the energy to care. that's the value of privilege: say what you want, the priviliged bends like a reed in the wind, if indeed anything is even heard. whatever critique is generated therein by the safe space of the marginalized group against majoritarian groups of which i am nominally a member is something that i'd likely accept politically, anyway (only lumpenized antisocial nihilists get huffy when, say, europeans are blamed generally for west african slavery: 'i didn't own no slaves! don't blame me!'--rather than exculpate from an unalleged accusation of individual responsibility, this reveals the desire to time travel and become a slaveholder, as well as an intention to derail or evade the critique). as the doctrine of collective responsibility is ludicrous, those critiques can't touch me personally, anyway, so, yeah, cool, do what y'all gotta do, yo.

the content is accordingly good and should be supported, but the form is objectionable where public space is expropriated. we can test this simply with a hypothetical wherein the principle is reversed: set up cute little white power or cispower or whatever-privilege power groups and use them to expropriate public space? yeah: i got a fuckin problem with both form and content now.