The protests at Mizzou and other schools across the nation have prompted conversations and debate in the media and body politic about the demands being made of administrations by student groups that range from resignation to curriculum reform. Many of the demands are made with the intent to address the larger conversation surrounding safety issues for students of color and institutionalized support for marginalized groups on campuses.
Opponents of creating safe spaces argue they limit
freedom of speech, and in schools, violate the sacred concept of academic
freedom. These are flawed arguments due to the fact that the distribution of
rights and respect is not a zero sum game.
Just because someone is afforded more rights and respect does not
inhibit your ability to exercise your rights as well. That being said, Roxane
Gay made an excellent point in her article The
Seduction of Safety: On Campus and Beyond
(link at the bottom) by stating
that “the freedom of speech, however, does not guarantee freedom from
consequence”. If you chose to ignore how
your speech impacts the rest of the people around you, you are first of all,
wasting the potential of such a powerful right, and second, being incredibly
selfish in your unwillingness to accommodate others. This is especially
relevant for teachers to consider when creating classrooms that are inclusive
and respectful.
While there are several flaws in the
superficial arguments of the opposition, most of the criticism is rooted in the
unwillingness to ask why these people are asking for these spaces. The idea of safety
being compromised is foreign and unthinkable. For those of us who live with
identities where our safety is disregarded, infringed upon, and attacked every
day, the urgency of creating and maintaining these spaces is real. Universities
can address this issue by building cultural centers and dedicating other
buildings to be used and operated by marginalized groups on campus so as to
foster community and solidarity between students. They are not frivolous or too
much to ask for. They are a conscious effort on behalf of the university to ensure
the success and well-being of students who deal with aggression on a daily
basis. You’re killing us out here, little by little, and we have nowhere to
escape. That is why we need them.
What I have come to call “sanctuary spaces” are
intended to protect, empower, and provide an outlet for students who struggle
on campus based on discrimination, lack of representation and absence of
community. These spaces are set up to reverse the oppressive power dynamic that
exists on campuses in order to help marginalized students find communities that
empower them and affirm their identity through shared experience and mutual
understanding. They help students build networks of support so they can explore
and embrace their identities in a safe environment. They are incredibly
important for the mental health and success of students yet, quite difficult to
institutionalize because they are dictated by the personal safety needs of the
individual. Policy that is proposed with the intent of making the campus
community safe for all students, all of the time, is grounded in impossible
logic. Idealism is not practical when trying to manage diverse and creative communities.
There will inevitably be conflict which results in students feeling unsafe and
attacked.
In light of this, I also propose that universities
invest in developing more psychological and emotional health resources for
students of color. First of all, these years are more stressful on students
than ever before and the whole student body could benefit based on their identities
as students. But more importantly, these resources should be accessible for
students who feel the need to dictate the exact conditions to deal with their
safety concerns. Each identity has different
needs that are best dealt with by professionals trained to understand them.
Other more informal programs like the Bias Incident Response Team are also essential
to providing a means to address the wide variety of safety concerns of students
by recording and advocating on their behalf for changes in campus culture.
The reality is that there are a variety of
different “safe spaces” that can be created. The ones illustrated above are
built with the intention of giving refuge to oppressed students to help combat
the inequities of safety in a community. Another type is geared towards facilitating
honest and productive dialogue about contentious issues. An essential piece to the
success and sustainability of these spaces is that they are created with a strong
intention based on clear goals and parameters that are developed and agreed
upon by those who are involved. The
freedom of speech is limited by the agreed upon parameters of everyone who will
be engaged, because a space is not safe until everyone agrees it is. These
spaces require working together as a collective where all sides recognize the
power and privilege of their salient identities so as to effectively neutralize
those for open discussion of opinions. Whereas the sanctuary type is inherently
exclusive, with the intent of reversing oppressive power dynamics for the empowerment
of student’s beliefs through validation and shared perspective for their
identity; this conversational type is absolutely inclusive of all perspectives,
with the intent of equalizing power differentials and removing judgments that inhibit
debate and dialogue about difficult issues.
Opponents criticize the demands for safe spaces
as being harmful in their shielding of students from scary ideas and triggering
content when; in fact, some are expressly built to talk about those challenging
topics openly. They argue that these spaces do not prepare the students for the
real world where they’ll be challenged every day, when they actually teach
students how to surmount challenges through critical thought and productive dialogue.
They accuse schools of babying their students by giving them a place to escape
ideas that go against their own. To debate these demands as a matter of
coddling or weakness is an extension of the ignorance that blinds many people
to privilege and oppression in the first place. It arises from a mentality that
considers the students demanding these rights and respect as weak in character,
and unimportant in the success of the community. They cannot fathom that the
world is that antagonizing because they have never experienced it first hand or
they are content with recent civil rights victories in the news. The world didn’t
just become a safe place for everyone when Title IX was passed, or when Obama
was elected president, or when the Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage.
Oppression is still very real and to deny a place of refuge and community to
those affected by it is to express a deep misunderstanding of the inequality
that exists embedded in our campuses and institutions. Even more disturbing and
destructive is that it indicates a refusal to participate in creating spaces
for dialogue about how to make our communities better for everyone.
Article link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/opinion/sunday/the-seduction-of-safety-on-campus-and-beyond.html
Comments
Post a Comment