Is this a freedom letter - or not?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Completely missed the point of trigger warnings and safe spaces, HL.

What do you view the point of these strictures that was missed?

Trigger warnings for example are not meant to keep people from "being offended"  but to warn people who may be forced to relive painful memories. For example a discussion of rape may cause a victim of sexual assault to have flashbacks or things of the sort. Safe spaces are not about anyone blocking out other opinions, but to allow people who have suffered trauma or abuse(such as the LGBT community) to meet others who have had similar experiences and not be criticized for being gay or trans or in a slightly more extreme example as victims of rape not having assholes claim that they are lying.

I truly hope that that made sense

This hits the nail on the head.

To answer to OP, the letter is obviously disgusting. In fact, I would reconsider attending any university that could so boastfully send out a letter clearly sh-tting on folks who already face more than enough marginalization every day.

Safe spaces do not exist so that people can cower from intellectual debate. They exist because some "ideas" aren't based in intellectualism at all and are objectively harmful.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Completely missed the point of trigger warnings and safe spaces, HL.

What do you view the point of these strictures that was missed?

Trigger warnings for example are not meant to keep people from "being offended"  but to warn people who may be forced to relive painful memories. For example a discussion of rape may cause a victim of sexual assault to have flashbacks or things of the sort. Safe spaces are not about anyone blocking out other opinions, but to allow people who have suffered trauma or abuse(such as the LGBT community) to meet others who have had similar experiences and not be criticized for being gay or trans or in a slightly more extreme example as victims of rape not having assholes claim that they are lying.

I truly hope that that made sense

This hits the nail on the head.

To answer to OP, the letter is obviously disgusting. In fact, I would reconsider attending any university that could so boastfully send out a letter clearly sh-tting on folks who already face more than enough marginalization every day.

Safe spaces do not exist so that people can cower from intellectual debate. They exist because some "ideas" aren't based in intellectualism at all and are objectively harmful.

You place some sort of premium on human suffering, as though that were the default.

It's lines of thought like this that make me support leaders who are not straight white men just because they are not straight white men. I don't mean to be offensive, but for some, oppression and being made to feel "less than" are constant. That's why safe spaces are needed, and I guess it's pretty clear that some people are incapable of understanding that, simply by virtue of their own rosier experiences. But to speak from one's own place of privilege and assume that safe spaces are simply safe havens from intellectual discourse is pretty ignorant. It's projecting a meaning onto these places that only comes from one perspective... and that perspective seems to be fear of owning up to the fact that people with privilege are sometimes complicit in making safe spaces necessary in the first place.

Yes, it does happen that safe spaces are abused by those who want an echo chamber. But again, it is not the primary purpose of them, and this letter just completely spits on the people who need these places most. It's a pretty elitist and wilfully ignorant way of looking at the safe space.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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?

[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.

[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?