The concept of 'Safe Spaces'

[karaddin]

Well it sure as fuck doesn't describe the university I work at or the one I attend. But then there are a lot of things that seem awful as fuck about US universities to me such as frats/sororities and the privileged party culture they exist in, so maybe there are other differences too.

Ark - my friendship group is nowhere near a safe space. My friends are the people life has thrown me together with and we don't all agree on a lot of things, I'm by far the most strident feminist in addition to all the other ways I'm different, so no it doesn't even come close. It does come closer than my family though, who although they love me have even more diverse viewpoints.

A place where I know everyone is either queer or queer accepting (including trans, there are plenty of trans exclusive queers) takes this massive weight off my shoulders. When you extend this out to places other than support groups, where it's not exclusionary as in the original example but anti-gay/bi/trans discourse would not be welcome, you create places where I can feel like a full human being who belongs. The cafe close to where I live is like the and I've still had an issue in there once despite that. Sure as fuck doesn't lead to an echo chamber.

[felice]

In the example in the article I linked to above, those who didn't feel that they could handle the debate on sexual assault clearly had the option of just not going.

Seriously? The people most likely to have difficulty handling a debate on sexual assault are those who've experienced sexual assault. They're the last people who should be discouraged from participating in such an event.

[The Reckoner]

Sounds like segregation.

[TerraPrime]

Sounds like segregation.

Yup, having a student group focusing on race issues wanting to talk about race issues without the presence of representatives of the dominant group is exactly like legalized social rules that bar dark-skinned people from equal access to jobs, education, housing, the justice system, and suffrage. You nailed it. Good job.

[TrackerNeil]

I think there is a certain identity-politics, my-pain-is-greater-than-yours mindset one can encounter at colleges (and in other places), and that mindset can and should be critiqued. At the same time I don't feel that makes safe spaces or "checking privilege" unnecessary or harmful in and of themselves. We are asked to check privilege because our own privilege isn't always readily apparent to us. (See the "What's water?" joke.) Safe spaces are in demand because, obviously, people don't always feel safe in mainstream settings. One can dismiss that as mere oversensitivity, but I tend to think that if people commonly feel threatened in certain environments there is some kind of real threat there.

[The Reckoner]

Thanks. I'm glad you find it problematic as well.

[Arkhangel]

Seriously? The people most likely to have difficulty handling a debate on sexual assault are those who've experienced sexual assault. They're the last people who should be discouraged from participating in such an event.

I didn't say they should be discouraged, I said that they weren't obliged to go. That's not the same thing, and if you read the article again you'll see that they also had the option of attending a parallel, competing talk by the president of the university about the role of culture in sexual assault, which had been arranged by the 'Sexual Assault Task Force'. If people then chose to attend the debate, which they knew was likely to be confronting, good for them - but it wasn't for lack of other ways to participate in the conversation. Short of cancelling the debate and thereby curtailing the rights of others, it's hard to see what more the university could have done to include those students.

[Castel]

I didn't say they should be discouraged, I said that they weren't obliged to go. That's not the same thing, and if you read the article again you'll see that they also had the option of attending a parallel, competing talk by the president of the university about the role of culture in sexual assault, which had been arranged by the 'Sexual Assault Task Force'. If people then chose to attend the debate, which they knew was likely to be confronting, good for them - but it wasn't for lack of other ways to participate in the conversation. Short of cancelling the debate and thereby curtailing the rights of others, it's hard to see what more the university could have done to include those students.

Honestly, they're the best in the article, for their willingness to just retreat to their safe space and let the discussion proceed unhindered.

[Athias]

I both agree and disagree with parts of this article, but either way it's an interesting read.

It's interesting that before hearing what she [Wendy McElroy] had to say, Ms. Byron felt that students would need counterprograms and safe spaces. McElroy's arguments are often polemic, but that is the nature of the intellectual approach to touchy subjects. Contrary to what Ms. Byron surmised, McElroy does not seek to invalidate how someone else "feels" about an issue. In addition, like I, McElroy doesn't simply criticize rape culture; she rejects it. With that said, however, I don't think it was particularly counterproductive--well not unless one is induldinging the abstract of psychological prescription--to design an alternative in which students who bear certain sensitivities can insulate themselves. If certain students or staff didn't want to hear McElroy speak, then they did not want to hear McElroy speak. At least Brown didn't ban McElroy from speaking. Admittedly, I would like to have seen McElroy debate Valenti in a more Lincoln-Douglas style format. McElroy espouses an antiquated, yet non-aggressive segement of women's advocacy--which I still believe is premised on a few misconceptions. I also have my misgivings about her labeling herself a feminist--even an individualist feminist--even if it's to honor its quakerist and abolitionist roots. Nevertheless, she's an intellectual powerhouse and I don't think her arguments would necessitate the safe space of an alternative program.

[Crazydog7]

As much as reading the Daily Caller makes me want to vomit they always seem to be the go to “news” outlet for these reverse racism stories. They must have a guy on standby.

It is utterly hilarious that these people were kicked out of a meeting designed to establish a dialog dealing with the problem of racism. I can maybe understand about 5% where the university are coming from on this and I think it would be a bit of an overreaction to scream reverse racism but at the very least it was handled in a shoddy way. The two main problems with situations like this is

1. They might not have come out and said it but they are in a sense buying their own propaganda by baring the two white people from the event they do fall into the trap of thinking that only White people can be racist.
   
2. This follows on top of that. Well meaning condescension is still pretty condescending however you dress it up if I were another ethnic group I would be utterly irate at the implication that I somehow couldn’t handle the presence of two white people.
   

[Arkhangel]

It's interesting that before hearing what she [Wendy McElroy] had to say, Ms. Byron felt that students would need counterprograms and safe spaces. McElroy's arguments are often polemic, but that is the nature of the intellectual approach to touchy subjects. Contrary to what Ms. Byron surmised, McElroy does not seek to invalidate how someone else "feels" about an issue. In addition, like I, McElroy doesn't simply criticize rape culture; she rejects it. With that said, however, I don't think it was particularly counterproductive--well not unless one is induldinging the abstract of psychological prescription--to design an alternative in which students who bear certain sensitivities can insulate themselves. If certain students or staff didn't want to hear McElroy speak, then they did not want to hear McElroy speak. At least Brown didn't ban McElroy from speaking. Admittedly, I would like to have seen McElroy debate Valenti in a more Lincoln-Douglas style format. McElroy espouses an antiquated, yet non-aggressive segement of women's advocacy--which I still believe is premised on a few misconceptions. I also have my misgivings about her labeling herself a feminist--even an individualist feminist--even if it's to honor its quakerist and abolitionist roots. Nevertheless, she's an intellectual powerhouse and I don't think her arguments would necessitate the safe space of an alternative program.

Would a thread on rape culture be doomed to descend into a mud-slinging competition? I feel like it's one of those concepts which is not well understood by the majority of people, including me and including some of the people who use it. I'd be interested to know how different people define and understand the term.

[karaddin]

Yes it would, the hostility many people have to the very idea of it in contrast with the strong feelings of those that see it as existing don't tend to produce civil discourse. Although I probably would characterise it a little differently to mud-slinging.

[Sci-2]

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.

Pretty much this. That said I do find the idea that a space can be declared safe simply b/c it doesn't have white people to be one of the silliest things I've heard of.

If anything, I suspect an argument can be made that the racial demographic most in alignment with progressive viewpoints is, in fact, white people.

[The Killer Snark]

Sci-2 - Agreed with that and with the post you also linked to. Hear, hear.

[TerraPrime]

If anything, I suspect an argument can be made that the racial demographic most in alignment with progressive viewpoints is, in fact, white people.

I know, right?! White people - are there anything they're NOT good at?! NO! I can't think of ANY! Even in being progressive about racism, white people do it better!! Go white people!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

So, judging a space "unsafe" based on nothing more than the presence of people with white skin makes sense?

[maarsen]

I know, right?! White people - are there anything they're NOT good at?! NO! I can't think of ANY! Even in being progressive about racism, white people do it better!! Go white people!

Being downtrodden. I admit I suck at that.

[TerraPrime]

TP,

So, judging a space "unsafe" based on nothing more than the presence of people with white skin makes sense?

In some contexts, yes. In most contexts, no.

In this case, the reporters were unknown to the group. If the student reporters have had prior engagement with the group and showed that they understand the language and the format of institutional racism, then I'd say that their skin color ought not to preclude them from the meeting. But absent of such demonstrated exceptionalism, it's safe to assume that a white person is ignorant of white privileges and/or is an active opponent to such an idea and will, therefore, intentionally or through ignorance, derail the purpose of the meeting.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

In some contexts, yes. In most contexts, no.

In this case, the reporters were unknown to the group. If the student reporters have had prior engagement with the group and showed that they understand the language and the format of institutional racism, then I'd say that their skin color ought not to preclude them from the meeting. But absent of such demonstrated exceptionalism, it's safe to assume that a white person is ignorant of white privileges and/or is an active opponent to such an idea and will, therefore, intentionally or through ignorance, derail the purpose of the meeting.

Oh now this is fascinating. So the standard for whether the mere presence of white people renders a space "unsafe" has nothing to do with the actual positions held by said white people, but rather the relative level of ignorance of the (presumably) persons of color ABOUT the actual positions held by said white people, who have determined themselves to be gatekeepers of said "safe spaces." Extremely interesting.

And of course, what makes a safe "space" only has to do with the assumption of racial animus on the part of whites towards persons of color, even though it's been widely understood for decades by scholars of race relations that racial minorities as a group exhibits similar levels of racial animus and racial prejudice to other minorities - particularly blacks - as does the predominant "white" population.

But of course, what does it matter if the person sitting next to you ACTUALLY holds racial animus towards you when you can exclude whitey from your "safe space" because you aren't sufficiently convinced of his or her bona fides? Unimpressive reasoning.

[karaddin]

Whitey? Really? As a white person that word just conjures up entitled white people whining about reverse racism.

And I'd say your reading is more unimpressive than the reasoning, which I took to mean that white people who have done work with the minority community in question have already established a relationship and made it clear that they won't behave in a way that invalidates the safe space, the preexisting relationship is what makes it OK.