On March 21, Judith Shulevitz, a contributing op-ed writer for the New York Times, published an article titled “In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas.” In this article, she discussed the various actions students on college campuses have taken against speeches and published writing that they have found offensive and disturbing. Some of these actions include having a safe space available for students during triggering discussions and protesting against offensive published writings on campus.
While at first it seems as thought Shulevitz is praising students for their efforts toward making their campuses safer places for all students, the tone quickly changes as she patronizes them and deems their actions not only unnecessary but childish and a threat to the academic environment. In one of the most offensive articles she’s written for the publication, Shulevitz invalidates the experiences and trauma of those who have suffered from varying levels of violence and completely misinterprets the purpose of safe spaces and protests in college.
People need safe spaces and trigger warnings not to suppress free speech or prevent certain topics from being discussed in class, but because they deserve respect, consideration and validation for their experiences.Some people have traumatic experiences relating to certain topics and the discussion of them forces them to relive such suffering -- which is not only detrimental to their mental health, but also can have physical repercussions ranging from headaches to panic attacks.
Shulevitz discredits the experiences students have faced, offering nothing but disrespect to those who deeply deserve to be respected. Safe spaces exist because other spaces inherently are not. Other spaces not intentionally made safe foster an environment in which those of marginalized identities can be attacked. They cannot express their concerns with complete faith that they will be respected. This goes beyond just creating a therapeutic space, but creating a kind environment for everyone, not just victims, to feel comfortable in. That begins with the simple act of being kind and taking into consideration the fact that you cannot possibly know the experiences every person in the room has had just by looking at them. You cannot know who has gone through what and how it has affected them. Until the whole world has become a universal safe space, where everyone has mutual respect for one another, the creation and designation of certain safe spaces is necessary so that everyone can feel safe from sexism, homophobia and other attacks.
Insulating students does not make them insular. Obviously, if some students feel threatened by certain topics or need certain support systems in place that they may access when triggered, they have already experienced trauma pertaining to certain topics.Safe spaces aren’t erected to prevent discussing threatening topics, but to provide support for those who have suffered at the hands of such dangerous ideas. Mental health services is extremely important for any and every age group. To say that creating a mentally safe environment for a set of people is childish is absolutely disgusting. Mental health issues are not just problems only children have and need grow out of when they “mature.”
Students “ask for things like mandatory training sessions and stricter enforcement of existing rules” because they want to prevent harmful ideas from existing on campus in the first place. If you strengthen supervision of hate speech, its after-effects and the protests it would inspire would not need to happen. Yes, today we have Title VII and Title IX, but they are so loosely enforced that students still need to push school administration to take them seriously. Even here at Tufts, Title IX was not taken seriously until quite recently. Students today are fighting the same battle that students a few generations ago fought. Our generation focuses on prevention, others focused on reaction.
Shulevitz obviously misunderstands the motives behind protesting certain events and writings deemed dangerous to students. She seems to believe that the primary reason behind such opposition is the need to prevent “emotional peril.” It’s so much more than that.
Protesting people and speeches of hate or that promote ideas that students are offended by does not show that the students are sheltering themselves from the real world, but the opposite. It shows that they are so in touch with the conflicts of the outside world, conflicts that they personally relate to, that they are willing to take an active stand against them. They believe that such hate does not belong in their schools. Protesting certain events shows that students see the world as other people do and see the harm in their views. The majority of the topics opposed are those not of different viewpoints, but those that are essentially dangerous.
There is a distinct difference between unfamiliar ideas and harmful ideas. Saying that a campus population that is sensitive to sexual violence has become sexually paranoid is harmful. Choosing to use “the n-word” over a euphemism even with perceived good intentions is harmful. Shaming a student for speaking out against a presenter who she felt targeted her and her culture is harmful. As she noted by another college student in the article, if a school "'is unsafe for one student, it is unsafe for all students.'"
Even in an intellectual environment, telling students that they need to toughen up and get used to offensive terminology teaches them that their negative experiences are worthless. Their strong feelings against topics such as racism, sexism, transphobia and more are not to be silenced for the sake of education. Education is supposed to give us a voice, to strengthen the voices already present. When you tell students to be complacent while their community is being invaded by ideas they find harmful and unacceptable, you are quieting their voices. You are taking away the power you claim to give them.
Ensuring the safety for the student body goes beyond taking care of one another, but also shows the outside world that this generation will not tolerate hatred. This generation will not quietly accept your words and your ideas out of fear of being labeled “childish” or “overly sensitive.” This is a strength we will carry with us after we graduate, out into the greater world. So keep your patronizing tone to yourself, because we are sick and tired of it. We will not be complacent with your verbal violence.
More from The Tufts Daily
