Letters to the Editor

Letter: Mills ’15 and others misunderstand safe spaces

By
Tuesday, March 31, 2015

To the Editor:

I am greatly disappointed that Walker Mills ’15’s opinion piece “Playing it Safe — Too Safe” falls into the same semantic trap that New York Times contributing opinion writer Judith Shulevitz and many other generational pundits have been making in recent editorial comments across news outlets. The current rally that generational pundits make against me and my peers in college today is that we have forsaken freedom of speech and multiple view points for “comfort.” What does this word “comfort” even mean? I’m afraid that it is a product of jargon that is too easily mistranslated by these opinion columnists hoping to pass a deadline. If they delved with any honest intent into the vast discourse of social justice, they would see how far from the mark they really are.

To begin, when students claim a lecture or event is “uncomfortable,” it’s not because the chair cushion is sagging. Nor is it because we simply don’t like the ideas being touted before us. It is because the speakers promoting these ideas do not display an effort to be inclusive in their thoughts.

A speaker’s language may not recognize the differences in gender identity or expression, and thus speak in ways that exclude and marginalize certain groups. Their arguments may not acknowledge the position of power they inherently have when making certain claims. The solutions they offer to whatever discussion at hand many not consider the long history of injustice performed against people of color.

These examples may seem vague, but I am trying to generalize a range of possible situations that have caused dismay across college campuses. To outside observers, make no mistake, these problems are not analogous to me sitting on an uncomfortable lumpy mattress.

When I say your argument makes me uncomfortable, it is because I am greatly concerned that you have not done the requisite thought and research into generating an inclusive thesis that considers as many nuances as necessary to deliver a sound debate.

If you do not believe that skin color, age, religious identity, sexuality, class or (dis)ability have an effect in cultural, political or economic problems that we debate at universities, then it is you who is trying to remain comfortable despite such frightening realities. In this sense, being uncomfortable is the strongest form of rhetoric that our millennial generation wields in the struggle against all forms of oppression.

Joseph DiZoglio ’15

  • Angry student

    This is exactly the crap the article was talking about. You invent reasons to be offended, you come up with ways that the world is out to get you. That’s it. That’s all you’re doing. You spend hours and hours convincing yourselves as to why this is somehow justifiable, but it’s not. Being offended is not a cogent argument. It’s basically just cover for your own deep insecurity.

    You never address the ideas. You don’t care about what others have to say. You simply don’t like what they have to say, and you’re too dumb to come up with a response. The vast majority of people outside the Brown bubble see right through this. It’s embarrassing.

    • V.B.

      cry more

      • Tim

        Couldn’t you say the exact same thing to people who feel uncomfortable about Ray Kelly speaking?

      • obamaiscarter

        It’s hilarious that you think you’re clever.

  • Subdivision

    So we censor all the dumb people now is that it Mr. DiZoglio?

  • Shogun1x

    You wrote a whole article that could’ve been done in one sentence.
    “Stop having a different opinion than me!”
    Just because a speaker has arrived at a different position than you, you want to run off and go cry about it like words can actually hurt you. It’s pathetic. How do you think you’re going to function in the real world? You can’t always be in an echo chamber. Sounds like you’re in for a rude awakening when you leave college.

    • V.B.

      racism is now an opinion apparently

      • Shogun1x

        Where did I say anything about racism?

        • LanceSmith

          People like V.B. only have a single tool in their toolbox: constructing the strawman.

          Ironically, if they actually received a good education in debate and were challenged on a regular basis they could be better equipped to debate the issues being discussed. Instead, they foolishly believe that the entire world is out to get them and that to discuss a topic in any way other than precisely the “right” way is to commit a mortal sin.

          The similarities between their secular-religion and conventional spiritual-religion are amazing!

          • V.B.

            right

          • LanceSmith

            Oh I know I’m right….And with each and every response you prove my point.

            It might be nice to live in such a boring, simple, little world where you are the only thing that stands between good and evil and that you and only you have all the answers. The Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, etc all had the same sorts of people so sure of their answers too ….

            It’s kinda like the creationists and their arguments. It doesn’t matter what anyone has to say … if it doesn’t agree with their “Good Book” it is not only wrong but sacrilege.

          • Shogun1x

            You hit the nail on the head. SJWs are a cult. Never accept any kool-aid they offer you.

  • Alex

    “When I say your argument makes me uncomfortable, it is because I am greatly concerned that you have not done the requisite thought and research …” — Then the appropriate response is for you to speak to/about that, not to silence the other person, which is what the current trend toward “safe spaces” is about. Shulevitz got it right. Very right.

    • V.B.

      sure it is

  • gregpiper

    This kid should do stand-up. He’s hilarious!

  • Brown ’08

    This sort of nonsense has been embarrassing Brown for decades. Back in 2001, David Horowitz paid for an inflammatory advertisement in the Herald. Students took the bait and destroyed the papers, rather than letting people recognize Horowitz for the doofus that he is.

    We let fools of all political shades speak so that they can reveal themselves as fools. If we suppress them, they’ll claim the mantle of martyrdom. To this end I’m glad the Herald provided Mr. DiZoglio with a platform.

  • LanceSmith

    Wow…the idea that this kid may graduate from an ivy league school perhaps shows how far our educational system is beginning to fall.

    Attention administrators: in your (laudable) quest for international students to fill your rolls, remember that these students only come here because our educational systems have traditionally been rigorous and respected. This rigor and respect can only exist as long as the educational environment is conducive to strong debate and intellectual honesty. You can’t have these things if comfort – as Mr. DiZoglio desires – is one’s primary goal. This reality transcends party or political ideology. We NEED free speech in order to survive, to thrive, and ultimately continue to evolve. Don’t kill the goose and loose her golden eggs …. don’t kowtow to people who wish to live in safe, little bubbles. Instead, encourage rigorous debate, challenge your students on every turn, and make sure they understand that their point of view is not sacrosanct.

    • V.B.

      racism is now a debate apparently

      • LanceSmith

        In a free, diverse, pluralistic society you don’t have the privilege of defining what is and what is not debatable.

        You can of course try to define what is and what is not debatable. After all, the religious have been defining what is and what is not debatable for generations …. they even have a word for what it is called when people debate the undebatable: heresy. The horseshoe theory* is alive and well I see!

        *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

      • Tim

        Another strawman. They aren’t helping your case but do keep making them

  • AlexCristo

    This is Ivy League material?

  • Mark H

    It seems the author is frightened by reality so he needs a safe space where he can escape from it.

  • Student

    You’re entitled to feel safe at Brown – but you are not entitled to feel comfortable. There is a very important and key distinction between the two words, and I urge you to honestly delve into this issue to actually learn the difference.

  • ndmike12

    Your explanation of what you mean when you say an idea makes you uncomfortable is an explanation of why you think those ideas that make you uncomfortable are wrong. As a counter-argument to the opinions that make you uncomfortable, what you say here has substantial merit. But as a justification for prohibiting the expression of such opinions, what you say here demonstrates an embarrassing lack of self-awareness. The authors to whom you are responding understand exactly what you’re calling for; it is you who do not.

  • B’14

    1- In debate, you’re supposed to be objective.
    2 – In debate culture, to be objective is effectively to be emotionless. The more emotional or personal you get, the less rational people think you are.
    3 – It’s hard to not get emotional about stuff that personally impacts you.
    4 – We debate about things in the world we live in. If we live in a world (and I think we do) where some people are privileged and some people aren’t, and we’re debating about the world as it is, some people are going to be more emotionally impacted about debates than others.
    5 – That means people are just going to keep perceiving the less privileged people as being less rational.

    If we want debate to be fair, we should think about how to say things in a way that makes people comfortable engaging in debate.

    I went to the community forum after the Ray Kelly shutdown last year. I liked what Professor Tomasi from the Political Science asked- something along the lines of “what do we need to do to create a situation where Ray Kelly can come speak and people can feel comfortable with that?”

    Free speech can be responsible speech.

    I don’t understand why this is hard for others to understand.

    • Student

      Free speech doesn’t come with qualifications. I don’t understand why this is hard for others to understand.

      • B’14

        It doesn’t, but it should.

        • embala

          But not your speech, of course. You already know what is best for the rest of us when it comes to speech, which is why you’re so confident being the one to place the restrictions on the rest of us.

          Either everyone gets to speak completely freely, or nobody does. There is no middle ground on this one.

      • B’14

        You can do both, you know- make your point and also be responsible. I actually think the rape culture event with the cool down room discussed in that NYT piece was a good example of this. Debate happened, but there’s acknowledgment that some people are more affected by rape culture than others. Why does it have to be one or the other?

  • Th3Acadia

    As a current student, I couldn’t disagree more. Sometimes I look at my fellow students in disbelief at their utter lack of real world appeal. They champion free speech, but only if those speeches adhere with what they feel. The Ray Kelly speech was a huge example. As a black student, I wanted him to speak that day, and during Q/A, wanted to ask him questions, but the venomous reception he got simply because the students disagreed with him, made me realize what I had been suspecting all along. The rose colored glasses with which most students see things is quite baffling. As liberal as I am, it is dangerous when the so called tolerant becomes quite intolerant.

    “When I say your argument makes me uncomfortable, it is because I am greatly concerned…” This is perhaps the most irritating passage of this article. It screams weakness of the real world, almost as if reality is composed of speakers who are nice, neat, and courteous, thus anything distracting from this makes the typical brown student weak at the knees and in need of play doh. What a shame.

  • ShadrachSmith

    Short Version
    Freedom of thought and expression is good, except when it conflicts with a Democrat political campaign meme, then it is to be crushed without mercy. Because Democrat campaign memes are revealed truth, and you shall worship no other Gods, and I ain’t kidding, neither.

  • http://www.tayoutofprint.blogspot.com/ TayNez

    I never tire of watching deluded, privileged college kids prove Judith Shulevitz’s point.

  • no

    You just repeated a bunch of social justice talking points that boil down to disagreement with you is synonymous with being wrong. “yes well, I’m only uncomfortable because you say wrong things!” This argument only works when people accept your frame, and guess what, the further you get from a college campus, the less that trick works.