COUNTERPOINT: Criticism of safe spaces misrepresents their purpose

Lily Vaughan | Daily Trojan

From the divisive political rhetoric of the 2016 presidential election to recurring instances of racism taking place on college campuses across the nation, the case for safe spaces at universities has been a prominent, yet controversial, issue. Though many students have expressed the need for campus forums in which they feel welcome and comfortable regardless of gender, ethnic background or sexual orientation, some have denounced the need for such spaces as a threat to freedom of speech and a means of coddling overly sensitive students.

But it would seem that those who hold this type of view don’t understand what it is they’re opposing.

A safe space is, very simply, a place in which students can come together without being subjected to outdated — though nonetheless present — forms of bigotry such as racism, homophobia and sexism. They are inclusive spaces in which students aren’t forced to be exposed to the kind of language and microaggressions that encourage the types of inequality and prejudice that we as a society still struggle with today.

Within the last year alone, we’ve seen instances in which university administrators have resigned after mishandling instances of racism on campus. Last fall, our crosstown rivals at UCLA marched in protest after members of their student body wore blackface to a Kanye West-themed fraternity party. Even during this academic year, our own campus has had to deal with similar acts of bigotry — from the instance in which our former student body president was accosted with a racial slur, to the more recent incident in which a student was called a racial epithet and pelted with eggs within university housing.

It is precisely these instances of campus racism that reinforce why safe spaces are so fundamentally important. Such instances didn’t occur in a bubble, and they’ve sparked a nationwide conversation that has forced students and administrators alike to come together and decide what kind of campus environment we hope to foster. It was in light of these instances that our Undergraduate Student Government passed a diversity resolution reaffirming our campus-wide commitment to creating a more inclusive, respectful campus community. The resolution was met with near unanimous support.

Those who argue in opposition to measures like these tend to frame their argument around freedom of speech, reasoning that promoting such a campus environment can only happen at the expense of students’ right to express themselves freely. Such a defense, however, suggests an inherent misunderstanding about the purpose of safe spaces in the first place.

Safe spaces and freedom of speech aren’t mutually exclusive. Just as students are free to voice our own opinions and viewpoints on a number of issues, students are also free to address those with whom we may disagree. But such an exchange needn’t be predicated on the right for students to make other students feel continuously disrespected. There are ways to voice our own viewpoints and beliefs without relying on the kind of bigoted or prejudicial language that is opposed to the kind of university environment our students and administrators are trying to create.

Moreover, framing safe spaces as somehow threatening to students’ freedom of speech highlights the privilege that those who make such ludicrous arguments ultimately have. The argument that spaces for students to escape the microaggressions they receive on campus somehow detracts from other students’ ability to feel comfortable ignores serious issues of racism, sexism and the like that hamper many students from thriving on their own campus. Regardless of whether or not some students are privileged enough not to endure these forms of bigotry each and every day, there is no reason why they should subsequently deny safe spaces to other students who may not be so lucky.

Our tuition doesn’t have to keep rising for us to realize that we’ve given a lot to be here. As students who pay upwards of $50,000 a year in tuition, we’re not being oversensitive when we ask for the respect and resources necessary to create the kind of campus environment in which we can thrive as scholars. We’re simply demanding that we get what we paid for.

This isn’t to say, of course, that our campuses must be reduced to echo chambers — places in which people are surrounded only by ideas and thoughts that fit their own, with no regard for opposing opinions. Such an environment is antithetical to an academic setting and does little to promote serious debate and dialogue.

But the freedom to discuss should not come at the expense of students’ safety and well-being. And that’s simply all that students who demand these kind of spaces are asking for — an open and relaxed atmosphere in which students can engage openly without being made uncomfortable, unwelcome or unsafe on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or any other part of their identity. Such a request isn’t unreasonable — it’s one that our student and administrative leaders should continue to fight for.

Yasmeen Serhan is a senior majoring in international relations. “Point/Counterpoint” runs Tuesdays.