Bossy, this is a political topic. The idea of safe spaces in colleges came about as a direct result of the election. What was your point in starting it if you didn't want to discuss it in context? Do you just want to complain about those darn sensitive teens today? You didn't need to include the university's letter as a point of reference if that's all you wanted.

My posts were not rants. I carefully and thoughtfully wrote them, taking a half hour to do so to be sure my meaning was clear in my own mind. I hoped it'd give us something to think and talk about. So I do feel insulted by you and Elmer calling my posts rants. Go back to complaining about college kids since that's what you wanted. I think this generation will do just fine dealing with life in the future. I'm not so sure about their elders.

Mayflower, I started the post after watching Sunday Morning and hearing the terms. I had not heard those terms before. I continue to be curious about whether safe spaces are an effective problem solving technique and the animus expressed here seems to get in the way of answers. I politely asked your explanation, you gave it and gives me an idea of where you stand. You may not feel that way, but your messages come thru as angry and frustrated. In an effort to be inclusive, i asked for yours and others’ POV and it doesn’t seem to soothe you. I don’t know what your expectation is, but I don’t see where I can do any more to encourage you to soften your tone. I’m not a provocateur, though I LOVE saying the word, so French.

Note to the French lurkers, I did not mean to offend by labeling you as “French”

finally, we can move on to other topics, if you’d like. What’s your fave cuisine?

Pkponder, got my comment completely. I live in the Upper South and have many southern relatives. My paternal grandmother was a Lee and her father a Confederate soldier. There are southern schools where one will still find racism, but I'm also aware that some of the worst anti busing demonstrations took place in Boston. My point was that I can think of no one who would ever think of the Univ of Chicago as harboring a hot bed of racism; some might quite incorrectly presume this if it had been from a southern university - that entire "code" thing again. Do I think Washington &Lee, Vanderbilt and Duke (among many others), are racist or even just politically conservative (which these days, many link to racism)? Of course not!

People will find something to take umbrage over no matter what one writes or says.

Mayflower, your timeline is incorrect. All this safe space and trigger warning stuff started long before Trump's election. It was around even before the Yale incident, which took place right before the election (before Halloween).

The entire trigger warnings/safe space movement started in early 2015. It has never had anything to do with Trump or his election.

Don't forget that the kids that are now in university are the generation of "everyone gets a trophy" and their parents are the ones who bought into "everyone gets a trophy" so that everyone feels like a winner and no one gets their feeling hurt. And you wonder why they want trigger warnings and safe places? Good for U of Chicago.

Having said that my tv gives me trigger warnings as do movies. There may be some speakers where a "warning" may be appropriate with regards to subject matter or language - but then who would be responsible for that?

"telling anglo and elmer repeatedly that Southern people aren't automatically biased, nor are all western, northeastern, etc. folks free from bias doesn't help."

rob, I never said or implied this. But I'll tell what I think you've said and implied - your opinion is correct but my opinion (which i restricted to a very narrow observation based upon white flight from public schools, which is a fact) is invalid and is a bias. What exactly causes a line to be crossed, aren't both just opinions? Maybe your view is a bias and mine is objective? But, actually, I didn't state what my opinion was, did i? I described an observation and said everyone should reach their own conclusion.

The main topic is more interesting, returning there.....

I will add that I didn't think it was political at all. Perhaps that's because I am ignorant.

I thought the terms and idea of "safe space" and "trigger" came out of the mental health communities online...In my experience (yes..I have SOME experience in SOME things) 2011.

I DO worry about our youth. Very much. Also my mom is a top Special Snowflake (capitalized out of respect for the elder generation ;)) She happily thinks she's deserving of a comfort puppy. And I'll leave it at that as she would despise the idea that she's an addendum to a topic. So the generational thing... def. more prominent now, but all are equally deluded.

I think it was a good discussion. I wish I had more to say about it but I enjoyed reading, as always

"I will add that I didn't think it was political at all. Perhaps that's because I am ignorant."

If you are, then I am too because I agree with you!

Bourbon Milkshake: a) I love your name, and b) thanks for pointing out that the term 'trigger warnings' came from on-line communities -- now it makes sense. The up and coming generation is using the internet to make their associations & friendships. On-line communities don't have non-verbal communication to smooth things over. And the communications can be intense, feelings can run high. In context, a useful term.

A few institutes of higher learning have picked up on 'trigger warnings' -- very few indeed, according to the article. Seriously, does anyone have a link to a statement by a college or university that says anything other than 'we promote free speech'?

(edited to add: Mayflowers, I appreciate the care you took to word your posts clearly. Thank you.)

It's not the statements of the college presidents, it's their actions. I think the situation at Yale is a good one.

Also, look at universities where invited speakers (including graduation speakers) are "un-invited". They need to walk the walk and many are not doing so.

Bossyvossy, this appears to be the Sunday news story where you heard those terms and from where you got your quote from U of C. So you don't see the politics in this topic? I'm not sure anyone really understands what this topic is about if they don't understand the politics behind the protests.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-war-of-words-on-college-campuses/

mayflowers- these protests, safe spaces, trigger words, etc have nothing to do with the election last year.

This has been going on for several years now.

Maybe some new terms, but old topics. Protests, free speech, academic freedom, yada yada yada, these are not new events at major colleges. These are not "political" events, they're campus events. There's always something to march about.

Google "Mario Savio" and the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in the 1960s. Not unique as similar things happened at dozens (hundreds?) of other places, sometimes dozens of other times at each, since then.

I am not saying they are just because of the election. I said it's political, and there's more to politics than elections. The CBS article mentions several examples. This is about universities cancelling speakers because of liberal protests and denying free speech. However, the protests with students trying to shut down speakers has only reached the greater public consciousness since the election because of the violence in Berkeley. Same with some of these words. I never heard the word "trigger" until this year on Hot Topics where trump supporters would remark "triggered" to each other when they upset a liberal. "Snowflake" is a word that has been commanded by white supremacists. It is used frequently on white supremacist websites. It no longer only means the offspring of a helicopter parent. Trump voters mocked liberal college students for needing "safe spaces" in the weeks after the election.

For someone who claims she wants understanding, there ya go. That's what you don't know about these words.

Hmmm, I still think this whole thing is overstated. "Everyone" supports free speech. "No one" supports hate or violence. Situations get out of hand. As Elmer points out, it's been that way for a long time.

If you want to know what your college campus is like, take a class. Or read the student newspaper.

Many people support hate speech.

"Jews will not replace us!"

President Trump: There were some very fine people at Charlottesville.

I think the moral of this story is: Don't empower narcissism...

Recommended reading. Tenge. The Narcissism Epidemic. I have students read a review and summary of it the first week of classes.

I guess I'm just tired of the lack of empathy and understanding. The way I see the problem in America today is not that people need to put on their big girl pants and suck up insulting unkindness. No one is better than another. Regardless of gender, skin color, how long they've been in America, or political persuasion.

.

Instead, they need to put on the other person's shoes and walk a million miles.

That's why I don't understand why the new conservative cause is to do away with the need to be "PC", like it was some awful burden to be kind and show some manners. I've asked on HT what those politically incorrect words are that they now feel free to return to, but no one has ever responded. Give us a list of words if you're so happy about it! Granted, political correctness can go overboard but most of us just roll our eyes when it does. The anecdotal examples here of oversensitive college students are in the same category. There will always be a few who take things to the extreme.

As for the free speech issue, I just don't see how it is good for our country as a whole to give speakers a voice when their views are harmful to groups of people based on their race, culture, religion, and sexual identity. Neo Nazis were never given a voice but now it's A-OK to express those views publicly. I don't think college administrators ever expected the likes of Ann Coulter, Milo Yianapolous, and Richard Spencer on their campuses, but they are in the position of having to honor the First Amendment. That is why I asked why young college Republicans want those voices to be heard on campus. I think that is far different than black speakers from the 1960s who wanted their voices heard because of racial inequality. Maybe it's just white backlash to having to share the pie now.

Mayflowers, it's been around for a few years.

No PC Culture in higher education.President Obama pushed back on safe spaces as did Van Jones. It was before this election, around 9/2015 and earlier.

Tough Talking Van Jones

No, I don't think safe spaces are a good thing.

Whether those spaces are provided by the university themselves to coddle students or whether those spaces are "created" by the students protesting because they can't stand to hear opposing views.

Both are wrong and frankly, I can't see how condoning or encouraging EITHER situation to take place can be beneficial.

Why shouldn't you be allowed to protest opposing views?

There were Viet Nam protest marches on campuses, civil rights marches on campuses but those seem to be from students who wanted real change and were acting and thinking outside of their own lives.

What is going on now seems to be the opposite of that. Students don't want to hear opposing views and that is wrong. I do have a problem when some of the speeches and presentations head into hate speech. The marches of the 60's and 70's wasn't about hate speech.

ETA - My first question is separate from the rest of the comment.

Asking to be shielded from those things in life that offend you will turn you into a victim.

Learn to protest effectively.

Blfenton- I was talking about mayflowers definition of a safe space.

"By safe space, I mean a place where radical views are shut out. Where free speech is denied because that speech is hateful or not PC, to use your term. Where it's the students who are creating a bigotry-free space through protests"

I vehemently disagree with this and I have been very disappointed to see people acting like petulant children with their proverbial fingers in their ears crying la-la-la, we can't hear you. Just because they don't want to hear conservative speakers, they make sure no one else can either. They stifle free speech in the name of safe spaces.

If it was just a matter of protesting conservative speakers, that would be wrong, but they are not protesting your run-of-the-mill GOP. They are protesting the white nationalist wing of the party because they see it as fascism. Ann Coulter, Milo, and Richard Spencer, who have been prevented from speaking on campus, are not ordinary conservatives--I hope! Do any of us even know what it is that makes them so controversial? Have we read their writings or heard them speak?

Many of the protesters equate it to when the world was silent as Hitler rose to power. It all starts with speech.

Mayflowers, Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote a book about Voltaire, in which she summarized Voltaire's beliefs about the freedom of speech: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". This has pretty much been the philosophy in this country since its beginning.

Even the ACLU has come down on the side of allowing people, whose beliefs we might abhor, to speak on college campuses and elsewhere <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/09/28/why-we-must-still-defend-free-speech/>;.

Read the article. You may find it surprising.

Just because they don't want to hear conservative speakers, they make
sure no one else can either. They stifle free speech in the name of
safe spaces.

That is really wrong to do. We have this piece of paper known as the Constitution, and I believe it very clearly outlines free speech, including that which we do not like (not hate speech, not going that far). But everyone gets to speak. I am totally down with that.

Which brings me back to asking why college Republicans are inviting purveyors of hate speech to campus when there are plenty of conservative speakers they could invite instead. Seems like a radicalization is taking hold.

I would also be happy if the balanced those speakers with some who might lean the other way. Why not give them the gamut to decide?

"We have this piece of paper known as the Constitution, and I believe it very clearly outlines free speech, including that which we do not like (not hate speech, not going that far)"

I believe that schools, especially private ones, have the right to set rules as they see fit. To allow and disallow various types of conduct at their own option. Just as employers do and as do many other organizations and groups who administer different settings. Try calling your boss an A-hole in front of a crowd of co-workers and then see how far your right to free speech extends. You're free to say that and you'll also be given the opportunity to find a new job.

(Why do so many people misunderstand the US constitution?)

I believe that schools, especially private ones, have the right to set
rules as they see fit. To allow and disallow various types of conduct at
their own option.

They sure do. No one disagrees with that here ;)

I am confused. Are these college students seeking a safe space because they are being forced to listen to speakers with viewpoints that they disagree with or feel threatened by?

I thought that they were just protesting the speakers on general principle which seems unfair to other students who might be interested.

My opinion might be swayed if indeed they are forced to listen to speakers that make them uncomfortable. That seems harsh and I don't blame them for wanting a 'safe space'.

No PK, no one is forcing them to listen. They are trying to silence dissenting opinions which, in my opinion, marginalizes those that disagree with them.

When people feel marginalized, they can sometimes turn to radicalization.

"We have this piece of paper known as the Constitution, and I believe it very clearly outlines free speech, including that which we do not like (not hate speech, not going that far)."

So-called "hate speech" is fully protected speech under the Constitution, as it should be.

Hate speech is not protected. Disliking something is not the same as it being hate speech.

While cursing at your boss can get you fired, it can't be the grounds for firing. It also may get you in hot water, but we were talking about invited speakers, who are in fact, protected by the Constitution. Dislike the speech, or even hate it, all you like, but they can say it in the appropriate venue and time.

Is there something wrong with me? Why isn't the "safe" space your dorm room. If you aren't open minded, and you don't think you will like what someone has to say, why would you go listen to him/her speak?

I was never arguing from a Constitutional POV. I was arguing from a social and personal POV. The Kitchen Table isn't a courtroom so a dry recitation of what the Constitution says wasn't of particular interest to me.

As far as hate speech, when the shoe is on the other foot, there is an uproar from conservatives. There was a recent case of an anti-white opinion piece in Texas State University's student newspaper called "Your DNA is an Abomination". I looked to see if conservative news outlets defended his First Amendment rights. They didn't mention anything about protected speech, but they did print statements from Andrew Homann, the former student body president and former chief of staff of the Texas Federation of College Republicans:

Homann told the Washington Examiner: “I have no doubt that
racism is still alive today. Look no further than this blatantly racist,
divisive article posted by the University Star. While I believe Mr.
Martinez has every right to express his disparaging world-view, I am
appalled that the school paper, funded by tuition and tax dollars, would
give this guy a platform to do so.”

It appears he supports free speech but believes public institutions should not give them a platform to express their views. I've got to wonder if Homann and the Texas Federation of College Republicans are equally outraged when anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant conservative speakers are invited to speak at a public university. I'd love to see who is on their speakers list.

Fox News received multiple outraged emails with copies of the article. In their online article, they did not say it was protected free speech, but they did quote Andrew Homann again:

Andrew Homann, a former Texas State student body president and chief
of staff at the Texas Federation of College Republicans, was among the
leading critics of the column.

“Just when you think the opinion's columns in the
University Star couldn't get any worse, they publish this masterpiece
and exceed my expectations,” he wrote on a Facebook post Tuesday.
“No one is going to take this paper seriously if the editorial board
continues to allow baseless garbage to be published week in and week
out."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/30/texas-student-newspaper-blasted-over-anti-white-your-dna-is-abomination-column.html

Last but not least, let's go to Breitbart, home of the Bannonites and the white nationalist wing of the Republican Party. The article isn't opinion but do read the comments. Nary a mention of Constitutional rights.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/11/29/texas-state-university-student-newspaper-on-white-people-your-dna-is-an-abomination/

"we were talking about invited speakers, who are in fact, protected by the Constitution"

Rob, you can keep repeating the same comment but you're using the term as if it were some absolute maxim and that's not how it works. There are many places and circumstances where "free speech" can be limited or prohibited and this situation (on property subject to controlled "public" use) is one of them. The constitutional concept has as much or more to do with what laws can and cannot be passed as on individual conduct.

Mayflowers, you're not going to let this go, are you. In the 60's and early 70's, many groups on college campuses brought in radical speakers - communists and others who believed in the violent overthrow of the government. Those people who brought them in are now in their late 60's-early 70's - my age - and most didn't end up being anarchists or communists - they just ended up as liberals, often "limousine liberals". Some of the young like to flirt with extremism - doesn't really matter which end of the spectrum. They end up growing up, marrying and having children, having jobs and a mortgage.

It does appear that today, liberals are "liberal" only where their own point of view is concerned. If another one is spoken about, they become quite intolerant. Hmmm....

Maybe you're the one who's not going to let this go, Anglo, whatever "this" is. I thought it was a discussion. I know the history of our free speech movement. I know what the Constitution says.

It's protected speech whether it comes from extreme members of the left wing or extreme members of the right wing. So going back to the original question, safe spaces shouldn't be provided for either side when they don't like what they're hearing or reading. Homann and the commenters on Breitbart and the people who emailed Fox are whiny little snowflakes who can't handle harsh talk about whites so they forced the student paper to apologize, to give them a safe space where they didn't have to read such "baseless garbage". Hopefully they'll all grow up some day and get married and have a mortgage. And raise their kids to not be whiny snowflakes so the cycle doesn't repeat itself.

rob333:

I strongly suggest you read and comprehend the articles to which you link. I thank you for posting a link that proves my point at the Supreme Court.

News flash: Steve Bannon invited to speak at the University of Chicago by a professor at one off their business colleges. Protests are occurring. Just do a Google search for this story

Oh geez, "Student organizers quickly organized a demonstration for 8:30 a.m. on
Thursday, January 25 at Booth to demand the University rescind Steve
Bannon's invitation. The organizers are UChicago YDSA, UChicago Student
Action, UChicago Socialists, and Students Working Against Prisons."

https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2018/1/24/steve-bannon-invited-university-of-chicago/

Back in the late 70's Anita Bryant was invited to my campus. At that point, she was big on her anti gay crusade.

The local LGBT group did not campaign to have her invitation rescinded. No, the theme was "kill her with kindness".

Several met her at the airport with roses, and that night at her venue many people protested her viewpoint outside. In silence, bearing signs and witness. Not blocking anyone from entering the venue. But letting it be known, in utter respect, that there was serious disagreement with her stance.

Doesn't make national news, unfortunately.

Let Bannon speak. He is debating someone. And let the students protest outside. That dynamic is free speech.

Hate doesn't equal dislike is what I was showing. Disliked stuff can be protected, but true hate speech is not protected. It's about people having rights, not wants. I was more than willing to find our meeting point, and move on to what is actual hate speech. Oh well. What's the point? There is no middle ground in America any more. Civility is gone.

"There is no middle ground in America any more. Civility is gone."

I agree.

Far more concerning to me is that Truth and the need/expectation for people to speak the truth and act truthfully is also slipping away. Treating the truth in a loosey-goosey way, something becoming far more common in our country in all corners of society, is far more dangerous for me

Rob333:

The SCOTUS disagrees with Mr. Lakoff. Thankfully.