The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the views of Her Campus.
Trigger warning. Safe space. Political Correctness. Arguments over this so called âcoddlingâ are no longer just for comments on Facebook or justification from your racist/sexist/homophobic relative when they say something outrageously offensive about a historically oppressed group of people.
The University of Chicago recently released a letter that they will not support the use of trigger warnings or safe spaces.Â
In a welcome letter to freshmen, the College made clear that it does not condone safe spaces or trigger warnings: pic.twitter.com/9ep3n0ZbgV
â The Chicago Maroon (@ChicagoMaroon) August 24, 2016
On the surface, their reasoning makes sense and seems justified. A âcommitment to freedom of inquiry and expressionâ? That sounds essential to the formation of an intellectual identity. âAt times this may challenge you and even cause discomfortâ? Well, sure, no one really likes to have their thoughts and ideas challenged. Of course it can be uncomfortable to realize you might be wrong, or to accept a new perspective, but thatâs part of growth and the learning process.
It doesnât really seem to make sense that any student who is voluntarily attending school would oppose these things. College is all about pushing you out of your comfort zone both inside and outside of the classroom.
I wholeheartedly agree with the University of Chicagoâs refusal to cancel guest speakers whose ideas may be controversial, and I think most students would too. I donât know too many college students who donât have thoughts or opinions on controversial topics and donât want to talk or hear about them. I think the only real problem or argument people could make against invited speakers was if the university was continually inviting speakers that only represented one side of a controversial topic.
But the universityâs refusal to support âtrigger warningsâ is where things start to get interesting. I think itâs important to first establish that thereâs a difference between a university refusing to require trigger warnings, and stating that they will not support them.
If the university is really concerned about accepting all forms of expression, why will they not support professors who make the decision to voluntarily provide trigger warnings? There is no university, at least not that I am aware of, that actually requires trigger warnings.
Trigger warnings arenât about censorship. They donât prevent any sort of information or sensitive topic from being discussed or covered at length. A trigger warning is simply a courtesy warning. Itâs a warning that class material will likely be graphic and could cause serious discomfort for a trauma survivorâpeople who have survived war or rape, for example, not just kids who donât feel like hearing about something they donât like. Â
The next thing that stands out is the statement that the university will not âcondone the creation of intellectual âsafe spaces.âââ Now, itâs pretty difficult to find an actual definition of what an intellectual safe space actually is. I can only assume that this is because it is not a rampant problem the way detractors seem to believe it is. But according to good ol’Â Wikipedia, safe spaces are places where marginalized groups can be free of violence, harassment and hate speech against them.
Personally, I canât begin to understand why anyone would have a problem with having a place where people were free from violence and hate speech, but they do.
I think the problem some people have with safe spaces is that they force us to realize that we are prejudiced. Opposing safe spaces the way this letter does is absolutely a restriction of freedom of expression. Sure, the university can say that policy of freedom of expression does not grant people permission to harass or threaten others, but that doesnât prevent threats or harassment. Why are those who feel discomfort or who disagree not allowed to have an alternative space?
The University of Chicago isnât promoting freedom of expression for everyone. Theyâre promoting freedom of expression for those in a position of powerâfor the guest speakers they choose, the professors they hire. Those people should absolutely have a freedom of thought and expression, but students should also be allowed a space where they do feel comfortable. Safe spaces donât exempt anyone from class. They donât hide people from ârealityâ or make them soft. Safe spaces exist because the world is harsh and people can be terrible, because prejudice exists and there are groups of people who experience this prejudice significantly more than others.
Safe spaces and trigger warnings arenât for people who donât want to hear âdifferent opinions,â or for people who are weak. They arenât for creationists being forced to learn about evolution. They arenât for Democrats who arenât interested in hearing from a conservative professor. Safe spaces and trigger warnings are for people who already know and have experienced just how harsh the world can be.