The concept of the “safe space” is a rising trend at universities nationwide. According to the Macmillan dictionary, a safe space is “a place where everyone can feel comfortable about expressing their identity without fear of discrimination or attack.”
At least on office located on the second floor of Kennesaw Hall is labeled as a safe space, and there is even a “report bias movement” where students can report discrimination they believe they have witnessed.
The issue is, while safe spaces may have the intent of preventing discrimination, they sometimes cause discrimination against individuals who voice unpopular opinions. This is done by labeling the opinions as “hate speech.”
Eugene Volokh wrote an article in the The Washington Post arguing that there is absolutely no “hate speech exception” in the First Amendment. Hate speech is entirely subjective — what might offend one individual may not offend another.
Examples of discrimination caused by safe space ideology at American universities are those of Ben Shapiro at DePaul University as well as California State University, Los Angeles, also known as CSULA. Shapiro’s opinions were labeled as hate speech and as a result, violence and suppression of free speech ensued.
According to The Daily Wire, a large group of angry CSULA students and faculty barricaded and prevented people from attending one of Shapiro’s events on the CSULA campus.
In some instances protesters even physically assaulted individuals who attempted to enter the speaking hall, simply to listen to a speaker who was invading their “safe space.”
According to The Washington Times, Shapiro has also been banned from speaking at Depaul University due to “security reasons.” The issue here isn’t the safety of Shapiro or the campus, but rather the lack of safety to begin with. Violent opposition is never justified regardless of the level of controversy.
According to New Boston Post, conservative speakers met similar barriers at a University of Massachusetts Amherst panel discussion event earlier this year. Members of the crowd shouted and interrupted while panel members were trying to speak.
I would say diversity of thought is the only form of diversity that matters. Iron sharpens iron, but conflicting opinions sharpen the mind. The debate that arises from conflicting views is fitness for the brain, and no strength can be gained from a cushioned workout. The desire to be shielded from unpopular ideologies by the safe space weakens intellectual diversity and kills freedom of speech.
The safe space appears to be quite a noble aspiration, but the surface level is as far as its nobility goes. What good is aspiration, however, if it cannot be carried out with the same nobility as its intent?
