Where is my safe space?

Kateryna Zagorulko

Featured Image: How far is too far? | Courtesy of Jennifer Moo via Flickr

York, like many other post-secondary institutions, works to promote a diverse and inclusive campus that allows all students to learn and grow in a safe environment. However, in our pursuit for an environment free from stigma and aggression, we often don’t realize the insidious byproduct that manifests itself. When these “safe spaces” are developed, we must ask ourselves this: who are they made to protect? Indeed, these areas are places in which students are safe from homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, fat-phobic, and a plethora of other “-phobic” language that can cause emotional distress. The issue here is that this blanket protection against what some deem “problematic” speech, or even “hate speech,” has begun to smother intellectual debate. It is becoming far more difficult to express one’s own opinion, without the accusation of being something-phobic or violating another student’s emotional safety.

The fine line between the individual and their ideology are being muddled in our predominantly left-leaning, progressive, university campuses. All too often, students are finding themselves in situations where their abstract discussions about complex and often uncomfortable topics are being perceived as an attack against another student’s personal beliefs. In other words, any critique or contradiction of one’s own intellectual opinions is now seen as an attack on their fundamental being. This sets a dangerous precedent that encourages a small group of outspoken students, who are often identified as “social justice warriors,” to silence dissent and penalize students who may share thoughts that are perceived as conservative.

Those in charge of running our universities, the faculty and administration, seem to do little to protect the rights of their students with opinions that go against the current norm—either because they, too, fear the repercussions of eliciting the unholy rage of these hyper-sensitive and over-righteous groups, or they are colluding with or failing miserably to hide their unfair bias for their leftist comrades.

Universities were founded on the basis of academic exploration. They are meant to push the boundaries of what we perceive to be true, ask hard questions about why we believe what we believe, and encourage us to strive to reach a more profound understanding of the world we live in. And yet, these values and principles seem to take a backseat in favour of a system in which students are expected to police their language in accordance with the current politically-correct rhetoric.

If one doesn’t agree with another’s opinion, it is much more constructive to discredit them through debate rather than assassinating their character with toxic, unfounded labels such as “racist” or “bigot.” One should deconstruct the other’s arguments with a more thought-out and academically-sound argument of their own. Take down the idea, not the person. It is only in this way that we preserve the principles of intellectual freedom by which our university systems were founded upon. Safe spaces can indeed be useful tools that allow students to speak their mind without social repercussion—however, that is only if they are made to protect the intellectual expression of all students, rather than the personal comfort of some.