Education / Schools

University Of Chicago And Northwestern University: Different Point Of Views On Safe Spaces

By  
on

our-places“See we do it for that boy that graduated / That looked you in your eyes real tough and said appreciate it.” — Andre 3000

This week, my MBA alma mater, the University of Chicago, sent a warning letter to its incoming freshmen class stating that it does not support “so-called trigger warnings” or “intellectual safe spaces.” Along with the letter came the book Academic Freedom and the Modern University: The Experience of the University of Chicago. I can’t help but wonder how I would’ve felt receiving this letter as an incoming student. To be honest, I probably wouldn’t have cared much.

But I don’t pretend my experience should be dispositive to a “safe space” or “anti-safe space” policy at a university. Maybe incoming students would find value in safe spaces or at least use them to discuss their educational experiences. Which begs the question, can safe spaces and diverse perspectives truly co-exist?

I enrolled in high school with a freshmen class of more than 400 students and graduated with a senior class of less than half of that. Of my senior class, around fifteen of us planned to attend a four-year college. Of the fifteen, several would be the first in their family to attend college. Back then, I didn’t know what a “safe space” was, I doubt my classmates knew either. I don’t think we would’ve needed one. This being said, I know that in many ways we were privileged and had it a lot easier than some other high school kids.

At the end of 2014, some law students from schools such as Harvard, Columbia, and Yale requested for their final exams to be delayed due to their emotional state resulting from some pretty upsetting events.

In his entertainingly titled article Special Snowflake Trigger Warning: I’m a Jerk, AbovetheLaw Columnist Keith Lee responded:

So when did law students start acting like a bunch of wimps? Cause that’s the takeaway I’m getting after these past couple of weeks….

It drives me crazy to think that there are law students out there with nothing better to do than wring their hands in desperation as they look at their Twitter feed and have their feelings hurt. I mean really? Something happened 1,000 miles from you and you have to have your exams delayed? You’re in crim law and you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that rape law doesn’t exist because it might trigger you?

You do realize you’re in law school to become a lawyer, right? Adversarial system, competition, zealous advocacy for your client, etc.? I’ve made the point before, but it bears repeating: lawyers are professional a**holes. Like, that is your job. More importantly, it’s going to be other people’s job to be an a**hole to you.

Sponsored

In contrast, I wrote:

Some [law] students sought to delay their final exams this semester. Please profess your warnings about their future. Please impose your self-righteous beliefs on the students while comparing your past to their present. If you want to interfere with other people’s lives, then you should understand more than just your business. Maybe the students do think they’re special snowflakes; maybe it’s something you know nothing about, or care to learn about it.

As an eighteen-year-old kid, I had no idea what to expect of college. I’m sure I didn’t expect any type of safe spaces, but maybe if I needed one I would’ve found one. At the very least, it might’ve been an option. Per the letter from Dean of Students Jay Ellison, University of Chicago incoming freshmen will not have this option. As Ellison stated:

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

To put it bluntly, I partly agree with the University of Chicago — I don’t believe universities should cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial. However, I’m not quite so sure how to answer the other two questions: Is there truly a dichotomy between academic freedom and trigger warnings? Do those who seek safe spaces expect to be shielded from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own? Or are these false choices?

Sponsored

Earlier this year, Northwestern University President Martin Shapiro defended safe spaces in his op-ed for the Washington Post titled, I’m Northwestern’s President. Here’s Why Safe Spaces For Students Are Important. He wrote:

I’m an economist, not a sociologist or psychologist, but those experts tell me that students don’t fully embrace uncomfortable learning unless they are themselves comfortable. Safe spaces provide that comfort. The irony, it seems, is that the best hope we have of creating an inclusive community is to first create spaces where members of each group feel safe.

At the end of the day, I don’t know how necessary school-sanctioned intellectually safe spaces are at universities or law schools. But I would like to think students at either could have a safe space option, if they so desired.

According to its letter, University of Chicago believes intellectual safe spaces impede academic freedom. While Northwestern University, the school across town, supports safe spaces. Are intellectual safe spaces any different than other safe spaces?

Or is this a case of nearby schools with quite different views? If so, will this supposed difference in policy have a noticeable impact on their respective students?

What do the terms “trigger warnings” and “intellectual safe spaces” mean to you? Where does your university or law school stand on these issues?

Earlier: University Of Chicago Takes Tough Stand Against ‘Safe Space’ Strawman

Renwei Chung is passionate about writing, technology, psychology, and economics. You can contact Renwei by email at projectrenwei@gmail.com, follow him on Twitter (@renweichung), or connect with him on LinkedIn.

Topics

, ,