Safe spaces; the well intentioned concept of a location where beliefs may be spoken without negative consequences or repercussions. However, if the age old adage of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” rings true, then safe spaces are detrimental to society. Throughout recent history, It has been exemplified how safe spaces are a detriment and this specifically evidenced through three key elements; safe spaces set unrealistic standards for the real world, safe spaces lead to the propagation and furthering of fascism, and safe spaces may lead to a bio political regime. Now despite all of the proposed benefits of safe spaces, one fact still remains blatantly clear to this day; safe space set unrealistic standards for how adult life …show more content…
It is true that we won’t marginalize people if there is a safe space, but we will be marginalized after graduation if we are ‘trained’ to feel uncomfortable when exposed to sensitive matters”(Zhang) The message is clear; with safe spaces comes a blatant disadvantage towards realism when encountering conflict and that is an issue. The real world isn’t a safe space and any other mentality is inherently toxic and detrimental. Despite the previous contention, proponents of safe spaces fall to a more instinctual logic based on that of feelings, this is demonstrated in the following,” Subjective thinking isn’t always the best way to understand other student’s experiences, fears and needs. On and objective level, safe spaces for students who feel they need them are something institutions of higher education may need to adopt.”(Zhang) Now, the sentiment of wanting to protect the students is truly noble, but the fact still stands of safe spaces causing societal detriment. In the words of Benjamin Shapiro,” facts don’t care about your …show more content…
This concept may be hard to digest, but is described quite succinctly by Daniel Greenfield of therevolt.org, “Safe spaces are where anyone who isn’t a safe space fascist is called a fascist.” What greenfield is describing here is the ideological bubble that exists within a safe space. The mentality behind a safe space is quite simple, “all those who dissent from our reasoning are violating our safe space.” This cyclical logic produces many dangerous results, such as when noted right wing advocate and media figure Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a speech at UC Berkeley and the end result was the ironically named “Antifa” (anti-fascist) movement setting fire to the campus in order to stop the man from speaking. The irony derives from their supposed anti-fascist tendencies when in fact, they are propagating fascism on their own. One can look to the esteemed Webster-Meriam’s dictionary for proof, “Fascism- A way of organizing a society in which a government is ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and people are not allowed to disagree with the government.” When this vocal dissenter in the form of Milo Yiannopoulos showed up to give a speech, Antifa went out of their way to silence the man and protect their safe space, thereby promoting fascism. This clear violation of an individuals first amendment
In the short essay “In Defense of Dangerous Ideas”, the author, Steven Pinker, argues that we must be free to express “dangerous ideas.” These ideas can be anything remotely controversial; making a variety of people uncomfortable or offended. According to Pinker, there is a certain way that society should function. He often refers to the ones in charge, the ones asking the questions, as “intellectually responsible.” As for the rest of society, they are simply the ones offended by these questions. In essence, Steven Pinker uses academic disciplines to argue that important ideas need to be aired and discussed, no matter the discomfort. Although I cannot agree with him completely, I do not believe that it is morally
College is full of new experiences, new people, and new communities, and many universities encourage the exchange of new ideas and diversity among students. This year, the University of Chicago sent out a letter to all of its incoming freshmen informing them that in keeping with their beliefs of freedom of expression and healthy discussion and debate, the school would not provide “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings”. Senior Sophie Downes found this letter to be misleading in many ways, including in the definitions of safe spaces and trigger warnings, as well as the issues it was addressing. Downes claims that the letter was misrepresenting the school, but also was using the letter as a sort
Because it is a Constitutional right, the concept of freedom of speech is hardly ever questioned. “On its most basic level [freedom of speech] means you can express an opinion without fear of censorship by the government, even if that opinion is an unpopular one” (Landmark Cases). However, the actions of Americans that are included under “free speech,” are often questioned. Many people support the theory of “free speech,” but may oppose particular practices of free speech that personally offend them. This hypocrisy is illustrated by the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was protested by many, but ultimately successfully defended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The residents of this predominantly Jewish town which contained many Holocaust survivors were offended by the presence of the Neo-Nazis. However, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, who...
Defining a fascist credo is difficult because the fascists built their support and policy on negative integration. This was coupled with an alliance and hostile takeover of the political right. If the fascists were on the right, then, their most obvious enemies would be on the left. With street brawls and political assassinations, the Socialists most assuredly were an opponent of fascism. Was socialism, then, the antifascist movement? While the political fighting occurred between left and right, the fascists opposed another large group as well: the liberal establishment. The fascists eventually took violent action against liberalism as well, in the form of World War Two. Thus, fascism was against these political groups, but were those political groups antifascist in nature or in action? The answer is quite simply yes, these groups were antifascist. The common element between the antifascist groups was that joining them and being active within them was a voluntary action; this is opposed to life in fascist regimes, wherein people were forced to become fascist. In this sense, fascism was totalitarian, because it made everyone become part of the system or else wanted by the police. The freedom in the liberal system, wherein people were Catholic, democratic, socialist, communist, and so many other things, was in opposition to the very idea of that freedom being taken away. People willingly joined these groups, making an antifascist credo easier to define, because it was a choice to be antifascist.
When the individual gets attacked verbally because of their controversial statements, they claim that they had the right to speak their mind no matter how disturbing their words were. They use the First Amendment as a cover for their wrong-doings, and that is never okay. They need to be educated on what they can and cannot say. Just because the First Amendment guarantees a person the freedom of speech, does not mean that they are entitled to say whatever they please. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains if an individual were to use “fighting words” then they are automatically not covered under their First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “fighting words” were not constitutional, so they would not be protected under the First Amendment (2). Many people misunderstand that much of their opinions that they speak consists of words that are unclear. More than half of the time the words they use in their statements are considered to be fighting words, for they are rude and ignorant. There is no need for the obscene words that they use to be protected under the First Amendment. They must become aware of their lack of knowledge for what “fighting words” are; furthermore, they
Taylor, Charles. "Censorship is Not an Effective Way to Protect Children." n.d. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 8 April 2012.
Another new idea that has surfaced which as potential to be harmful for personal growth, especially at this age, is the creation “safe places” being implemented across many college campuses. Like trigger warnings, there are certain situations that may call for a “safe place,” but as the President of the University of Oklahoma points out, college “…is not a 'safe place, ' but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others.” (Stump) In other words, we are limiting this generation negatively by not allowing them to be exposed to other opinions other than their own. By making colleges “safe places,” it ultimately infers that the working world is a “safe place,” which could be very misleading
People may advocate that if there were no safe zones, students would not have a place to go where they could be protected from exposure to a hate crime. Contrary to this statement, any adept college campus should be able to effectively distinguish between students who are expressing their personal opinions and students who having a goal of undermining others. If universities are able to appropriately draw the line between discriminating and expression of opinion, then safe zones become unnecessary. Because the scale of what would be considered discriminating can be questionable and line is hard to draw, people have to take it into their own hands to be considerate of their peers. With respect and the mutual goal of personal growth, it would be possible to eliminate the idea of safe
Dazey, Josh. “Campus puts students at undue risk: while restricting “basic natural rights”. Ifeminists. Feb 12, 2002. http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/0212b.html
The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Essentially, the First Amendment is supposed to give citizens the right to have free speech, free choice of religion, and the right to assemble peaceably. There are limitations to the First Amendment because every person interprets the rights differently. The Nazis most likely assumed that it was all right to hate people and say it in public, but the Jewish people disagreed, believing that hatred is unacceptable. Where is the line drawn when it comes to people being able to speak their minds? Justice Murphy, a member of the Supreme Court in 1942, had a say on what is considered allowable under the First Amendment and what crosses the line, and he stated,
Freedom of Speech means that everyone is entitled to having an opinion , and they are able to share this opinion in any way that they would like to - online on Facebook, in public on a street corner, or even just in a face-to-face conversation with someone else. There are many different kinds of people, all with their own opinions, beliefs, and ideas and in the United states, citizens are fortunate enough to be able to share these thoughts with anybody they want to, without fear of major repercussions.
Colleges and universities control their faculties and students’ actions by shaming and criticizing their faculties and students on social media when the faculty’s or student’s actions cause distresses to other college students. They also control their faculties’ or students’ actions by firing the faculty or suspending the student. In an article that is posted on the website Newsweek, Nina Burleigh states that “American college campuses are starting to resemble George Orwell’s Oceania with its Thought Police, or East Germany under the Stasi. College newspapers have been muzzled and trashed, and students are disciplined or suspended for “hate speech,” while exponentially more are being shamed and silenced on social media by their peers. Professors quake at the possibility of accidentally offending any student and are rethinking syllabi and restricting class discussions to only the most anodyne topics.” The idea American colleges and universities are compared to the Stasi, the secret police of East Germany, or a thought police shows how dangerous and restrictive college campuses have become. This quote also cites the fact colleges have tried to censor their own newspaper as one of the examples how dangerous campuses have become. The fact that colleges try to censor their own newspaper and to intimidate their professors is troubling because this fact indicates that American colleges and
The first amendment famously known as the “Freedom of Speech” had always defended by the United States Constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights. However, with the right of to voice our own opinion has led to some people inflicting hate to different group of people in a form of a hate speech. Hate speeches have always existed ever since the introduction of the first amendment in the United States constitution. They usually come into hating against American politicians based on their actions that they don’t agree. However, some individuals believe that hate speeches should be regulated. To address the both sides of the topic, the CQ reporter obtained a statement from Michel Rosenfeld and a response from James Weinstein to how they see the
As a result, they can be positively or negatively affected depending on how their body interacts with the space (Ansaloni & Tedeschi 2016). A space can be originally designed to stimulate a sense of normality and security (Campbell 2013). When being in a safe space, individuals feel a range of positive emotions which eventually encourages them to adhere to the rules and norms. Different strategies are implemented within spaces to instil a sense of security; some examples include installing surveillance cameras and hiring security guards. However, such
Around the world the ideology known as “fascism” is commonly related to two men, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. This tradition of political thinking has long been argued by political scientists and many others on what exactly defines a fascist state. According to Webster’s dictionary the term is defined as, “a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.” Although this definition would be contested by many scientists it is a good compromise.