Introducing The Next Generation Of Leaders And Thinkers

In Defense of Safe Spaces and Trigger Warnings

University of Chicago Campus via Wikipedia
University of Chicago Campus via Wikipedia

By now you’ve probably heard of the University of Chicago’s controversial decree: they passionately object to the idea of safe spaces and trigger warnings, refusing to give them any place on campus. Why? Supposedly such things stifle “freedom of expression and inquiry.” I expected the U of Chicago, a world class institution, to practice a little more intellectual honesty before so proudly sending out a declaration. This move doesn’t guarantee academic liberty. If anything, it’s spitting on the very real people who need protection.

Of course, the concern over safe spaces and trigger warnings stretches far beyond Chicago. From the University of Missouri to Oxford, there’s been a raging debate about the merits of these concepts. The main argument against them is that they suppress conversation and allow students to avoid uncomfortable topics. Images of kids stuffing their fingers into their ears might come to mind, little brats who have been coddled and can’t take the truth. However, the belief that any accommodations in academic settings are harmful is inherently flawed.

To truly understand the nuances of this discussion, one must first recognize why these notions exist in the first place. The source of safe spaces is thought to be gay and lesbian bars during eras of widespread homophobia, a place where the oppressed could socialize without fear of persecution. The idea later extended to women’s liberation organizations, which created havens from a male-dominated society. Today they come in the form of affinity groups for people of color and LGBT students, as well as other marginalized identities.

That’s the keyword: marginalized. Spaces like these are created because mainstream society is either openly hostile to or misunderstanding of these groups. Facing bigotry on the daily basis, whether it be someone making a racist joke or being misgendered, can be exhausting. Having a place where you’re protected from such abuse is invaluable, and until society properly addresses it’s intolerance, safe spaces will remain necessary. A common retort is that this somehow doesn’t prepare students for the real world, and will make them defenseless. Little do these people know, the marginalized are actively suffering in the “real world”, and we’re used to such antagonism and just want asylum from it. Interestingly enough, the opposition against safe spaces is largely comprised of people who don’t need them (i.e. straight white people).

And what about trigger warnings? They’re an attempt to shield those with post traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, from content that might expose them to their trauma. As a survivor of sexual abuse myself and a person who’s spent time around those who have experienced some form of violence, I cannot stress how crucial these can be. While some might say exposure is necessary to “get over” it, that would better be accomplished in a controlled environment.

Furthermore, some argue that trigger warnings encourage censorship. But here’s the thing, trigger warnings are just warnings. This isn’t about deleting or censoring content, it’s giving those who need it a headsup. Letting individuals decide if they can handle disturbing subject matter won’t ruin academic integrity. Students who can bear it can take whatever courses they want. Otherwise there are alternative ways to teach a number of topics. After all, there are great works of literature that don’t have graphic rape scenes. You can talk about genocide without showing pictures of corpses. Lectures about war don’t need to get into the explicit details.

The most troubling aspect of this entire debate is that it reveals how society views the marginalized, especially minorities and those with mental health issues. We aren’t intellectually inept, cowards, or whining children, and we shouldn’t be treated as such. The problems we have are valid and deserve proper solutions, whether they be safe spaces or trigger warnings. By opposing them, you aren’t defending free speech, you’re belittling already vulnerable people.  

Comments are closed.

Related Posts