There’s something I’ve noticed about today’s political discourse. It’s not anything revolutionary, many have noticed it before–maybe it’s something new, maybe it’s something we’ve always done. I don’t know, I’m too young to remember. Anyway, this thing I’ve noticed is that, with regards to political issues, we have a tendency to hyperbolize. It’s never a molehill, it’s always a mountain. It’s never a rainy day, it’s always an apocalypse. It’s never a rule of discourse on college campuses, it’s always a threat to our most fundamental constitutional rights.
But what exactly are these campus rules? They are so often demonized, but only in the general sense. It is rare that we hear of how this specific rule is hurting us in this specific way.
It is important to understand that the idea of implementing campus-wide “safe academic environments,” or “safe spaces,” is not meant to shield the younger set from ever hearing anything that they disagree with—therefore neutralizing their ability maintain discourse with unfavorable ideas. Rather, these areas exist to allow those students particularly vulnerable to hate speech and discrimination a place in which they can recuperate after being exposed to such vulgarity. While it would be nice if this kind of safe space were unwarranted, the fact remains that there are many ways in which we verbally hurt each other, and these wounds can be deep.
Many who argue against these safe spaces , claim that, “these kids need to learn to handle offense!” But this is a poor stance, as offense is not a logical reaction, but a visceral one. It takes self-reflection and directed personal growth to “learn to handle offense,” and these are not easy feats when you don’t feel safe or accepted in the world around you. It is odd to me that people would simultaneously tell students that they need to practice self-change, while also calling for the removal of the spaces in which these students would be best equipped to sit and think, and practice said change.
Now there are those who say that they favor isolated safe spaces, but are affronted by the equally common practice of college campuses establishing the campus itself as one great safe space, in which the same regulations are placed, prohibiting the vocalizations of certain ideas deemed hateful. The argument against this usually goes that this will create an environment where student’s ideas are never challenged, and they are not exposed to the opposing views held by many in the real world.
I find this argument to be disingenuous for two reasons.
First, the idea that prohibiting certain ideas from college discourse shelters students from said ideas implies that students only ever hear anything on campus. I would argue that, no matter how thorough, an education that never leaves campus is incomplete. A scenario wherein an opinion’s expression is prohibited on campus does not mean that said opinion disappears from all students’ thoughts–it just means that it won’t be as large a part of the conversation.
But what is the effect of inhibiting our discussions thusly? I would argue that, contrary to the narrative often peddled by opponents of so called “safe-space culture,” such limitations of speech don’t actually harm our discourse, but strengthen it.
When we talk about the monitoring of language on college campuses, we are often referring to the exorcising of most racist/sexist/anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. The direct result of this mandate is that people of all social minorities are able to express their opinions without being verbally accosted by slurs aimed to shut down this person in this moment. Furthermore, the broader opinions forbidden under such regulations only really encompass our society’s very worst ideas. Eugenics, homosexual degeneracy, female inferiority, and white nationalism are all scientific, sociological, and economic theories that have no credible studies behind them and are not able to stand up in today’s academic community. If you want to talk about the socioeconomic reasons for why African-Americans are statistically more likely to be imprisoned, or why Asian students often do better on SATs, go ahead. But if you want to claim that non-white races are genetically inferior, you’ll have to bring something substantial to back up your opinions. These ideas already have no place on our college campuses, and I don’t think that the official prohibition of said ideas is nearly as big of a problem as many would have us think.
All that being said, the question still remains: what does this mean for our right to freedom of speech? Well, nothing really. The first amendment prevents congress from passing any laws which allows the government to arrest citizens for expressing opinions which said government finds unfavorable. As it stands you can still walk down the street and shout whatever you want with little fear of legal repercussions, and the fact that some colleges have made efforts to remove some forms of speech from their campuses does not change this fact. The idea that this is an issue of freedom of speech is one that was put forth by the alt-right in an attempt to garner sympathy at a time in which popular opinion of their movement was low. Many have now bought into the idea that our freedom of speech is at risk, and that college students don’t hear enough differing opinions. It’s time we recognize this issue for the non-issue that it is and move on to talking about the things that are actually disruptive to college-student life.
… Did y’all hear about that parking fee increase? Who else is angry?