Is this a freedom letter - or not?

[DavidB.]

Horrible letter. The right wing obsession with safe spaces is getting frustrating.

lol

Uh...? Do you really think people are happy that they sometimes feel like they need a safe space? Do you really think people on the left like them? It would be fantastic if they weren't needed at all, but it's not for a person with privilege to decide for people without it that these spaces are obsolete. The only people who are offended by safe spaces are people who are too fragile to own up to the fact that society collectively makes them necessary. What is really so threatening about the [legitimate] safe space?

No, people in need of a safe space are probably not happy. That doesn't mean it's universities' responsibility to provide these places, or censor other people. Students are adults. They should learn that in the real world, one is sometimes confronted with things (or words) that may appear to be threatening or that make one recall unpleasant past experiences. By creating a world of safe spaces and trigger warnings, you prevent a person from growing stronger and coping with their experiences and you shield them from the real world.

The remark that I'd be a "person with privilege" and, therefore, am not allowed to have an opinion of safe spaces is also ludicrous, especially given the fact that you don't know anything about me or my supposed "privilege". I experienced some f'ed up things. But I'm not going to demand my university to create a safe space or shield me from people or words that may make me recall that stuff.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Except there's not really such a thing as "the real world" in a society that is dominated by artificial, human-made institutions. Implying that there is is basically tantamount to implying that there's a natural order to things, and that the way it is is the just the way it is—the way it must always be. And... that's not true.

The way things are set up, whether in workplaces, hospitals, government, or schools, is premeditated. Decisions are made by people in power to run schools efficiently, automate banking this way or that way, channel resources into a hospital here or there... the world is an intensely manicured place, crafted by those with the most power.

So while it may be true that currently we are unlikely to always come across safe spaces when we need them, that doesn't negate the fact that things should change. And where they can, why shouldn't they? "It's sh-tty everywhere, so it should be sh-tty here too" doesn't quite sit well with me, because you can literally use that mantra as an obstacle to pretty much every kind of positive change you can name (indeed, you can even use it to reverse positive change). This university big-wig instead decided to create a roadblock when he could have been an ally or at the very least said nothing at all. And as I think we've hopefully established, legitimate safe spaces that serve a clear purpose for people who have been victimized don't hurt anyone at all. I mean, I hear you when you basically say that safe spaces prevent people from building a thick skin... But I read that as "safe spaces make it more difficult for people to learn that they should shut up about their problems." Let's face it: A thick skin shouldn't be necessary—that's victim-blaming. The onus for change should be on the assholes who make people feel like sh-t. So yeah—vilifying safe spaces is outrageous.

And I stand by my comment about privilege. I'm not saying you necessarily fit the bill (you can decide for yourself). What I am saying is that just because a person doesn't feel or understand the need for a safe space themself doesn't mean they have the right or requisite wisdom to tell others who do need one that they're wrong or sh-t out of luck. And if a person does do that, then yeah—I'll admit that I don't have much respect for them.

[Torie]

Except there's not really such a thing as "the real world" in a society that is dominated by artificial, human-made institutions. Implying that there is is basically tantamount to implying that there's a natural order to things, and that the way it is is the just the way it is—the way it must always be. And... that's not true.

The way things are set up, whether in workplaces, hospitals, government, or schools, is premeditated. Decisions are made by people in power to run schools efficiently, automate banking this way or that way, channel resources into a hospital here or there... the world is an intensely manicured place, crafted by those with the most power.

So while it may be true that currently we are unlikely to always come across safe spaces when we need them, that doesn't negate the fact that things should change. And where they can, why shouldn't they? "It's sh-tty everywhere, so it should be sh-tty here too" doesn't quite sit well with me, because you can literally use that mantra as an obstacle to pretty much every kind of positive change you can name (indeed, you can even use it to reverse positive change). This university big-wig instead decided to create a roadblock when he could have been an ally or at the very least said nothing at all. And as I think we've hopefully established, legitimate safe spaces that serve a clear purpose for people who have been victimized don't hurt anyone at all. I mean, I hear you when you basically say that safe spaces prevent people from building a thick skin... But I read that as "safe spaces make it more difficult for people to learn that they should shut up about their problems." Let's face it: A thick skin shouldn't be necessary—that's victim-blaming. The onus for change should be on the assholes who make people feel like sh-t. So yeah—vilifying safe spaces is outrageous.

And I stand by my comment about privilege. I'm not saying you necessarily fit the bill (you can decide for yourself). What I am saying is that just because a person doesn't feel or understand the need for a safe space themself doesn't mean they have the right or requisite wisdom to tell others who do need one that they're wrong or sh-t out of luck. And if a person does do that, then yeah—I'll admit that I don't have much respect for them.

In your opinion, should the entirety of a campus be a "safe place," or just some room somewhere to which one can retreat?  You did not speak to trigger warnings.  What is the zone if any that should apply to them?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Horrible letter (sane)

People once again show they have no clue what safe spaces and trigger warnings actually are.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Except there's not really such a thing as "the real world" in a society that is dominated by artificial, human-made institutions. Implying that there is is basically tantamount to implying that there's a natural order to things, and that the way it is is the just the way it is—the way it must always be. And... that's not true.

The way things are set up, whether in workplaces, hospitals, government, or schools, is premeditated. Decisions are made by people in power to run schools efficiently, automate banking this way or that way, channel resources into a hospital here or there... the world is an intensely manicured place, crafted by those with the most power.

So while it may be true that currently we are unlikely to always come across safe spaces when we need them, that doesn't negate the fact that things should change. And where they can, why shouldn't they? "It's sh-tty everywhere, so it should be sh-tty here too" doesn't quite sit well with me, because you can literally use that mantra as an obstacle to pretty much every kind of positive change you can name (indeed, you can even use it to reverse positive change). This university big-wig instead decided to create a roadblock when he could have been an ally or at the very least said nothing at all. And as I think we've hopefully established, legitimate safe spaces that serve a clear purpose for people who have been victimized don't hurt anyone at all. I mean, I hear you when you basically say that safe spaces prevent people from building a thick skin... But I read that as "safe spaces make it more difficult for people to learn that they should shut up about their problems." Let's face it: A thick skin shouldn't be necessary—that's victim-blaming. The onus for change should be on the assholes who make people feel like sh-t. So yeah—vilifying safe spaces is outrageous.

And I stand by my comment about privilege. I'm not saying you necessarily fit the bill (you can decide for yourself). What I am saying is that just because a person doesn't feel or understand the need for a safe space themself doesn't mean they have the right or requisite wisdom to tell others who do need one that they're wrong or sh-t out of luck. And if a person does do that, then yeah—I'll admit that I don't have much respect for them.

In your opinion, should the entirety of a campus be a "safe place," or just some room somewhere to which one can retreat?  You did not speak to trigger warnings.  What is the zone if any that should apply to them?

I was pondering those questions earlier, actually. Regarding how these safe spaces should manifest, I guess I believe there should be varying degrees of both options. Where I went to undergrad had a few "reading rooms," "lounges," and "nooks" that were dedicated safe spaces for various different communities/allies. I think that's pretty inoffensive, and since they can be barriered off and aren't necessarily meant to be places of rigorous academic discussion anyway, I think it's totally legit to have stricter rules about what can and simply can't be discussed in these zones.

On the other hand, I think it's also absolutely okay to designate a campus at large as a safe space for, say, the LGBT community or victims of assault, so long as everyone understands that the "filter" is obviously going to be much looser. Here, it is reasonable to expect total acceptance and non-discrimination. It may not, however, be reasonable to expect that people should not be allowed to openly discuss the university's sexual assault policy. These discussions can and should happen, with the caveat that they are always done in a respectful way. I suspect the author of the letter in the OP was not meaning to disagree with what I've said in this paragraph, but by painting safe spaces with a broad brush, he's kind of implying as much. That's why his words were so clumsy and offensive.

Anyway, yeah. When these kinds of respectful discussions do take place (like my sexual assault policy example), what's the harm in offering a trigger warning? I think it actually enhances debate because it challenges people to consider how their opinions might affect those who have a different perspective or bring different experiences to the table. Maybe if a person stopped to think about whether a trigger warning was necessary, they'd also treat their own ideas with a bit more scrutiny. It's not about censorship; it's about respect. Trigger warnings are the bridges that help ensure freedom of academic expression and safe spaces aren't completely mutually exclusive. And if you can have both, why the hell wouldn't you want to?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I would never willingly praise any university administrator, politically correct or not. This moronic culture war is a petty distraction from the fact that higher education, especially in America is led by money-grabbing spivs.

[Torie]

I would never willingly praise any university administrator, politically correct or not. This moronic culture war is a petty distraction from the fact that higher education, especially in America is led by money-grabbing spivs.

I mean, does anyone doubt that the real audience for this letter are alumni with deep pockets and a smug sense of derision toward kids-these-days and their "safe spaces"?

(The fact that Torie is the person who felt most compelled to share this with us is no coincidence.)

The real audience were the incoming students. In any event, here is a riposte to all of this from a fellow elitist.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I really enjoyed seeing a high school peer burst on to the National Fox News scene to defend this. Hopefully he will be running this country soon. Good to know some good young people are still level-headed, defending the country from these dangerous freaks.

[Gass3268]

Read an article from the student newspaper and they talked to students, professors, advisors, and councilors at the school. All of whom said that they actually do all the things that the President says they don't do there. Horrible Letter because it shows how out of touch the dude is from his own school.

[Torie]

Read an article from the student newspaper and they talked to students, professors, advisors, and councilors at the school. All of whom said that they actually do all the things that the President says they don't do there. Horrible Letter because it shows how out of touch the dude is from his own school.

I am curious exactly what the students say they do, that the letter suggested that they don't. The letter stated college policy. It was not focused on what students actually do. Anyway, please elaborate.

[Cassius]

The idea that university administrators should listen to and 'be in touch' with the more 'engaged' students is ridiculous. Universities are not democracies, and a very good thing too, it protects the rest of us from the 'democratically aware' students and their nonsense.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Massive FL. A letter like this gives me hope for the future of universities in this country, after the past couple years of losing so much ground to the forces of political correctness.

[RFayette]

     Massive FL. A letter like this gives me hope for the future of universities in this country, after the past couple years of losing so much ground to the forces of political correctness.

[Higgs]

Huge FL, made me reconsider applying there.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The idea that university administrators should listen to and 'be in touch' with the more 'engaged' students is ridiculous. Universities are not democracies, and a very good thing too, it protects the rest of us from the 'democratically aware' students and their nonsense.

I am not surprised to read you reiterate your low opinion of students, but I am shocked to read you praising university administrators.

Nervous, selfish, careerist administrators obsessed with keeping their boards content and their donors satisfied have more to do with the worst excesses of on-campus censorship - whether it is pressed upwards, downwards, leftward, rightward, or however - than do student organizations that get hot-and-bothered because the campus Republicans are hosting a speaker who once called someone a cuck on Twitter or whatever.

Cassius has never had any problem with the privileged exercising their privileges. In fact, most of the time he encourages them to do so.

[Cassius]

The idea that university administrators should listen to and 'be in touch' with the more 'engaged' students is ridiculous. Universities are not democracies, and a very good thing too, it protects the rest of us from the 'democratically aware' students and their nonsense.

I am not surprised to read you reiterate your low opinion of students, but I am shocked to read you praising university administrators.

Nervous, selfish, careerist administrators obsessed with keeping their boards content and their donors satisfied have more to do with the worst excesses of on-campus censorship - whether it is pressed upwards, downwards, leftward, rightward, or however - than do student organizations that get hot-and-bothered because the campus Republicans are hosting a speaker who once called someone a cuck on Twitter or whatever.

Oh I don't care about censorship and all the fuss and bother over off campus speakers - I mean, it is the right of university administrators to decide whether or not to give platforms to speakers or not. No, I was speaking more broadly, in terms of the fact that the more active students tend to have views that are substantially out of step (in terms of action at the very least, if not necessarily content) with the rest of the student body, and that it's primarily thanks to them being slapped down by university administration that they don't get to test out some of their more... fringey ideas (this coming from my own personal experience at least where the student 'left' is very much in control of most of the Student Union apparatus). As for having a low opinion of students, I wouldn't say that, I mean, I am one. It's just my experience of higher education (and this is an unrelated point to the rest of the thread) has led me to the conclusion that in and of itself (leaving aside its ability to confer employability enhancing degrees) it's nothing special and that students are not really any more intelligent than most of the rest of the population (I would of course include myself here). This is why I always find it slightly irritating when certain people (not talking about you necessarily) like to bandy about how many people with degrees are supporting a certain political candidate or cause, when plenty of people with degrees are frankly thick as sh**t. It's also why I believe, at least in my country, we need to change this ridiculous idea that between 40 and 50% of young people should attend university (and the attendant expectations that come from getting a degree).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Except there's not really such a thing as "the real world" in a society that is dominated by artificial, human-made institutions. Implying that there is is basically tantamount to implying that there's a natural order to things, and that the way it is is the just the way it is—the way it must always be. And... that's not true.

The way things are set up, whether in workplaces, hospitals, government, or schools, is premeditated. Decisions are made by people in power to run schools efficiently, automate banking this way or that way, channel resources into a hospital here or there... the world is an intensely manicured place, crafted by those with the most power.

So while it may be true that currently we are unlikely to always come across safe spaces when we need them, that doesn't negate the fact that things should change. And where they can, why shouldn't they? "It's sh-tty everywhere, so it should be sh-tty here too" doesn't quite sit well with me, because you can literally use that mantra as an obstacle to pretty much every kind of positive change you can name (indeed, you can even use it to reverse positive change). This university big-wig instead decided to create a roadblock when he could have been an ally or at the very least said nothing at all. And as I think we've hopefully established, legitimate safe spaces that serve a clear purpose for people who have been victimized don't hurt anyone at all. I mean, I hear you when you basically say that safe spaces prevent people from building a thick skin... But I read that as "safe spaces make it more difficult for people to learn that they should shut up about their problems." Let's face it: A thick skin shouldn't be necessary—that's victim-blaming. The onus for change should be on the assholes who make people feel like sh-t. So yeah—vilifying safe spaces is outrageous.

And I stand by my comment about privilege. I'm not saying you necessarily fit the bill (you can decide for yourself). What I am saying is that just because a person doesn't feel or understand the need for a safe space themself doesn't mean they have the right or requisite wisdom to tell others who do need one that they're wrong or sh-t out of luck. And if a person does do that, then yeah—I'll admit that I don't have much respect for them.

Agree, this letter is a sack of sh**t.