Reflections and Responses–Safe Spaces

Safe spaces have been the buzzword in academic spaces for some time now. It is also one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts. To be sure we are on the same page, let us look at some definitions and the origins of safe spaces.   

A dictionary definition of a safe space would be “a place or situation in which you are protected from harm or danger” (Cambridge Dictionary). A popular understanding is that a safe space is where people can be safe without their identity being attacked. Or simply put, a space where individuals will not be judged for what they say or do. This kind of space is akin to a therapist’s room.

Katherine Ho provides a more nuanced definition in this article. She says the end goal of a safe space is encouraging individuals to speak. In this type of space, people are still made to feel uncomfortable, yet it’s “safe” to take intellectual risks and explore any line of thought. Here, “safety” protects your right to make others uncomfortable with ideas and rational arguments. It’s important to note that in this setting, free speech is the end goal. This type of safety is commonly emphasized in classrooms and discussion groups, where open dialogue is particularly valuable. 

The above definition from Ho contradicts the more popular understanding of a safe space. Most of the misunderstandings and controversies arise because people usually are navigating the space between these understandings without explicitly engaging in that conversation. The term “brave space” has emerged to overcome what some see as the failure of safe space both as a term and a concept. We do not want to play the semantics game right now, but we’ll certainly explore this when we get the results from this poll. 

It is Ho’s  understanding and definition of safe space that we want you to keep in mind when discussing safe spaces at MIIS.

The concept and the terminology of safe spaces emerged in the mid-1960s with the opening of gay and lesbian bars. Jemima Homawoo refers to these bars as a “safe place where people could find practical resistance to political and social repression.” It must be noted that safe space does not mean safety, because members of the gay community may not be safe anywhere. 

A safe space also does not have to be a physical space. It can simply be a group of people who follow some rules. 

As mentioned above, the controversies surrounding safe spaces often come from a misunderstanding or misuse of the meaning and definition of the term safe space.  We present some of these controversies surrounding the term safe space. Those who are against having safe spaces in college campuses argue that safe spaces:

  • Coddle students. In their article, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” authors Lukianoff and Haidt say that universities today are pressured into protecting their students from every form of discomfort. In the current polarized world, safe spaces result in completely separating people who have differing viewpoints, making it difficult for those polarizing ideologies to have a conversation.
  • Curtail free speech. This is probably one of the biggest critiques for safe spaces. Those who make this argument believe (see this for an example) safe spaces give way too much importance to political correctness and believe in keeping out voices that raise counter opinions. What is the point of academic institutions if it is not asking its students to engage in intellectual curiosity and debate? 
  • Foster groupthink. This follows the free speech arguments highlighted above. Because these spaces foster homogeneity, they end up promoting groupthink, and when members think individually, they might be punished.
  • Hinder intellectual progress. Safe spaces will not allow for open intellectual conversations because they curtail free speech and coddle students. Academic institutions must encourage students to be uncomfortable and must present them with “alternative” views.
  • Create a victimhood culture. Referring to space spaces that are designed for specific identity groups, the argument here is that these spaces will end up fostering a victimhood culture–as in the fact that these members will be insulated from the real world in which they will have to operate once they leave the safe space.

Those who argue for having safe spaces in academic institutions say that these spaces:

  • Have support. Help members share the challenges they face because of their identity. Sometimes, just having the space to share their challenges helps those who are facing discrimination because of their identity feel vindicated.
  • Provide a space for marginalized voices to be heard. At times, for some of the silenced voices, a safe space is the only place where they may be heard. Taking this away means they will remain voiceless.
  • Help allies have more insight into other people’s experiences. Since the safe space operates on rules and not restricting membership, allies in the space can receive first-hand accounts of the marginalization and discrimination suffered from some identity groups. The additional knowledge and empathy will help them stand up more courageously on behalf of those who need their support. 
  • Provide a space for healing. Identity-related conversations are always challenging and often cause much hurt for those who are directly targeted by negative stereotypes, discriminatory remarks, and general inequity. In particular, these spaces are needed for victims of assault. Safe spaces that let people speak without being judged provide a healing space to recover from a constant onslaught of “attacks.”
  • Are important for mental health. Constant anxiety can impact psychological and emotional wellbeing. Everything in our immediate environment (food, music, conversations) impacts us at both a conscious and unconscious level, says Minaa B. So, for vulnerable communities, it is not only helpful but necessary to have safe spaces–where they can be themselves without fear of retaliation or retribution.
  • Allow intellectual curiosity and growth. It is argued that because safe spaces encourage conversations (with respect) about difficult subjects including ideological differences, it allows for students in academic institutions to grow, be confident (see this) and be naturally curious. Peter Wood, in this article, opines that framing the issue as safe spaces or free speech is wrong. In fact, the discussion should be about intellectual freedom. Many have argued that safe space and free speech are not mutually exclusive.

The controversies surrounding safe spaces is not going to end anytime soon. However, we need to explore the relevance of safe spaces to MIIS. Tell us what you think by answering this poll.

Here are some resources if you would like to explore this topic more before answering the poll.

Click here to take the poll.