Racial segregation at universities--a growing, and legitimate trend?

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Dude, it’s your cite, and what you said you think represents “safe spaces” where you’re from

no, that is not what I said. Read better, read better in the very paragraph you quoted. it is not presented as an example of a precise definition of what a safe space is, but how “safe spaces” are discussed and referred to in the UK.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

and it almost precisely contradicts your summary of it .

It you think it does then you must also accept that it contradicts your own definition of a safe space as well yes? Seeing as it explicitly rules out issues of physical safety.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

It explicitly talks about how safe spaces aren’t comfortable, and how people in them confront issues that make them uncomfortable.

Issues are not people. Does it surprise you that people may fail to apply a set of recommendations and best practices and that terms may not be consistently applied?

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

That’s not even remotely the same thing as a place where you don’t come in contact with people you disagree with.

You can set up a situation where ideas are discussed without the people holding them actuallybeing present. That indeed is how many in the UK interpret such advice.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You see no middle ground between “safe space” being a place where one takes physical refuge from violent attackers, and “safe space” being a place where there’s no disagreement, despite your own cite describing such a middle ground .

No, not at all and that appears nowhere in my comments. I accepted right at the start the possibility that people were explicitly using that term to describe the former whereas my experience has been the use of the latter.
There is a fruitful discussion to be had on all the grey areas of “safe spaces” and where reasonable safeguarding from violence ends and where unreasonable sheilding from people with diferent ideas begins.
However it is hard to have that discussion if one party insists that “safe spaces” means only the former.
That polarisation of the term was not of my making, the excluded middle ground was not of my making.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You didn’t actually read your cite, and may be embarrassed at offering it.

Fully read and not embarrassed about it seeing as I don’t offer it as anything other than an example of how they are discussed in this country. It was never given as an exact template that all safe spaces in the UK adhere to.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You don’t have any actual idea what folks mean when they talk about “safe spaces.”

If only I’d asked such a question really early on eh?

Let me ask you.
When you use the term “safe space” are you referring only to issues of physical safeguarding?
Do you accept that the term covers a wide range of issues right down to not wanting to come in contact with people that disagree with you?
Do you think there is a point on that gradient where the reasonable becomes unreasonable?

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

It’s very difficult to carry on a conversation with you when you’re ignorant of the terms you’re using

I’m not ignorant of the way the term is used in the UK, I am ignorant of the way it is being used in the USA and in this thread. Hence me asking that question.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

A better course of action would be to admit you’re not well-educated on the topic of safe spaces, stop opining on them until you educate yourself , and then educate yourself.

Then the same applies to you. You seem ignorant of the way the term is used in the UK. You’d do well to read further on it or ask questions.

[Smapti]

@chappachula

The guys in that video did not want to sit at the same table as you.

They chose to sit separately, in a PUBLIC space, built and paid for by government funds on the state university campus.

Then they chose poorly.

It was obnoxious behavior, but free speech should still be protected.

You seem to be mistaking “freedom of speech” with “freedom from criticism”.

We’re not on the way to Stalinism, but we do appear to be on the way to a new McCarthyism.

“But this time in a bad way!”

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Smapti

You seem to be mistaking “freedom of speech” with “freedom from criticism”.

I didn’t get that impression from those posts.

No-one has freedom from criticism, that’s the point of free speech. The criticism is free speech. If you seek to silence criticism of ideas then you don’t believe in free speech in any meaningful way.

[Smapti]

@Novelty_Bobble

If you seek to silence criticism of ideas then you don’t believe in free speech in any meaningful way.

“Shut the hell up” and “get the hell out of here” are both expressions of free speech, are they not?

And when coupled with the owner/administrator’s right of free association, they are fully acting within their First Amendment rights to show you the door if they deem that your particular speech is overall a negative contribution to the space they’re responsible for.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Smapti

“Shut the hell up” and “get the hell out of here” are both expressions of free speech, are they not?

they are.

@Smapti

And when coupled with the owner/administrator’s right of free association, they are fully acting within their First Amendment rights to show you the door if they deem that your particular speech is overall a negative contribution to the space they’re responsible for.

They could well be. It would certainly be an indication that the owner/administrator of that space is not in favour of free speech. Only speech that they approve of. “negative contribution” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

[Smapti]

@Novelty_Bobble

It would certainly be an indication that the owner/administrator of that space is not in favour of free speech. Only speech that they approve of.

And if I came into your home, or place of business, or some other place you had established for people to congregate safely and civilly, and started screaming that I thought you and/or your guests worshipped the devil and you ought to be guillotined for it, would it indicate that you’re “not in favor of free speech” if you threw me out on my ass?

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Smapti

And if I came into your home, or place of business, or some other place you had established for people to congregate safely and civilly, and started screaming that I thought you and/or your guests worshipped the devil and you ought to be guillotined for it, would it indicate that you’re “not in favor of free speech” if you threw me out on my ass?

It would indicate I’m not in favour of disruption, harassment and credible physical threats in my own private establishment. I don’t think anyone believes that free speech includes the right to make credible physical threats unchallenged, nor actual disruptive or harassing behaviour.

If the same person came in with a sticker on their laptop that indicated they might hold some of those views but said nothing and sat quietly away from everyone else then I wouldn’t throw them out.

At a public library, if I noticed someone reading “The Communist Manifesto” or “Mein Kampf” I wouldn’t ask for them to be removed.

[Smapti]

@Novelty_Bobble

I don’t think anyone believes that free speech includes the right to make credible physical threats unchallenged, nor actual disruptive or harassing behaviour.

Displaying a “Police Lives Matter” sticker in a multicultural space is disruptive and harassing, and the behavior of these trolls when called on it proves it as such.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Smapti

Displaying a “Police Lives Matter” sticker in a multicultural space is disruptive and harassing

I don’t think it is. What disruption or harassment is being caused by the sticker? If I see something that is objectionable to me but can avoid it and ignore it without any effort whatsoever then I do not think it rises to the level of disruption and harassment.

There are myriad slogans that can cause offence be they plastered on a T-shirt, stuck on a laptop, bumper sticker etc. To whom do we gift the responsibility of deciding what are and are not indicators of actual malevolent intent? What method of adjudication is suitable?

@Smapti

and the behavior of these trolls when called on it proves it as such.

Then the expressed behaviour of the person is the problem and not the sticker.

[Smapti]

@Novelty_Bobble

I don’t think it is.

Then you are wrong, and if you don’t understand why, it is not my role nor is it within my ability to explain it to you.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Smapti

Then you are wrong, and if you don’t understand why, it is not my role nor is it within my ability to explain it to you.

I think that is a cop-out.

If you are intending to prove an objective right or wrong then sure, you will not be able to do so. You should at least be willing and able to back up your opinion though. Why do you think what you think on this subject? Do you have any interest in understanding why I think what I think?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Novelty_Bubble, it’s tempting to respond to your hot mess of a snip-and-snipe with a line-by-liner of my own. But that serves nobody. I’ll just look at the very first part:

@Novelty_Bobble

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Dude, it’s your cite, and what you said you think represents “safe spaces” where you’re from

no, that is not what I said. Read better, read better in the very paragraph you quoted. it is not presented as an example of a precise definition of what a safe space is, but how “safe spaces” are discussed and referred to in the UK.

The level of discourse you’re wanting is apparently this: I characterize your cite as showing what you think represents safe spaces where you’re from, and because you actually think it represents how “safe spaces” are discussed where you’re from, you tell me I need to “read better.”

Ain’t nobody got time for that mess.

The rest of your post is as bad or worse, a Gish Gallop of gibberish with nary a substantial point to be found and plenty of bizarre misunderstandings of what I’ve written (or not written–so weird how you keep saying I think safe spaces are about physical safety).

It makes plain whether you plan to educate yourself on your misunderstandings, and given that, I think we can be done. There’s nothing to actually respond to.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I characterize your cite as showing what you think represents safe spaces where you’re from, and because you actually think it represents how “safe spaces” are discussed where you’re from, you tell me I need to “read better.”

If your response hinges on a misunderstanding of what I wrote then yes, you need to go back and re-read for comprehension.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

plenty of bizarre misunderstandings of what I’ve written (or not written–so weird how you keep saying I think safe spaces are about physical safety).

Is that really what I keep saying? Or, did I actually ask you direct questions to clarify if that is what you really mean. I can help you by re-posting precisely those questions right now, and that you choose not to answer.

@Novelty_Bobble

Let me ask you.
When you use the term “safe space” are you referring only to issues of physical safeguarding?
Do you accept that the term covers a wide range of issues right down to not wanting to come in contact with people that disagree with you?
Do you think there is a point on that gradient where the reasonable becomes unreasonable?

That covers the meat of the disagreements does it not?

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

It makes plain whether you plan to educate yourself on your misunderstandings

Did I, or did I not ask you specific questions for that very purpose?

Did I or did I not state, in plain english, in my post.

@Novelty_Bobble

I’m not ignorant of the way the term is used in the UK, I am ignorant of the way it is being used in the USA and in this thread. Hence me asking that question.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

There’s nothing to actually respond to.

I think you simply don’t want to answer my clarifying questions. I don’t know why and so you are probably right. There ends up nothing to respond to.

[Smapti]

@Novelty_Bobble

Why do you think what you think on this subject? Do you have any interest in understanding why I think what I think?

I think that society functions best when its prime endeavor is ensuring the greatest possible good for all.

If you disagree, then I have no interest in understanding why.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Smapti

I think that society functions best when its prime endeavor is ensuring the greatest possible good for all.

If you disagree, then I have no interest in understanding why.

I’m not surprised that we agree on that, I’m also not surprised that we disagree on how best to bring that about.

[WalterBishop]

@Smapti

Displaying a “Police Lives Matter” sticker in a multicultural space is disruptive and harassing, and the behavior of these trolls when called on it proves it as such.

Your definitions of “disruptive” and “harassing” seem to be extremely broad. I feel that, were colleges to apply them consistently, they’d end up prohibiting a good deal more than “Police Lives Matter” stickers.

For example, a student from a family of cops might be very offended by an #ACAB sticker. He, like the students in the video under discussion, might feel compelled to say something about it. He might feel like the student displaying the sticker is an aggressor, trying to get a rise out of anyone in the vicinity who might have more moderate opinions about cops. After all, it’d be silly to deny that the sentiment “All Cops Are Bastards” isn’t confrontational. That, after all, is the point. So, should #ACAB stickers be banned?

You might say, correctly, that cops aren’t members of a protected class. But we’re talking about the potential for a sticker/slogan to cause disruption. In that context, I don’t think this consideration is relevant. Democrats aren’t a protected class either, but if a student came in wearing a T-Shirt that said “All Democrats are Bastards” (for example), few would deny he was being disruptive.

Similarly, a student descended from a family of Cuban refugees might feel very offended by the sight of fellow students in Che Guevara T-Shirts. He might feel compelled to tell those students that Che Guevara was a vicious, authoritarian, murderous thug who helped ruin his country (all true, IMO). He might claim (and not without reason, if we’re using such loose definitions of disruption and harassment) that the sight of a hardened killer whose regime persecuted his family being valorised on a T-Shirt makes him feel unsafe. Should colleges ban Che Guevara’s image from shared spaces?

I won’t bore everyone with further examples. They’re very easy to think up, after all. If society agrees to use such exceedingly loose definitions of ‘disruption’ and ‘harassment’ to help govern safe spaces, it seems to me that the potential for conflict quickly becomes unmanageably large, which rather defeats the object of the safe space.

In my opinion, safe spaces would be more likely to maintain their integrity if colleges (and the students who attend them) used more rigorous definitions of disruption and harassment. Students may occasionally encounter, and be forced to ignore, opinions they find offensive, but this seems preferable to the alternative, which would be the disintegration of safe spaces themselves under an avalanche of complaints of disruption and harassment which, under the very loose definitions used by some in this thread, would all be equally valid.

[Novelty_Bobble]

Well said

[Smapti]

@WalterBishop

Students may occasionally encounter, and be forced to ignore, opinions they find offensive, but this seems preferable to the alternative, which would be the disintegration of safe spaces themselves under an avalanche of complaints of disruption and harassment which, under the very loose definitions used by some in this thread, would all be equally valid.

You continue to assume that the provocateurs objecting to safe spaces are doing so in good faith.

They aren’t, and if that’s not obvious to you, then I’m not the one who’s going to change your mind.

[Stanislaus]

When I was at Uni in 90s, there was an LGB* society. It met Tuesday nights in the bar of the student union which was reserved for that purpose. Only members of the society could get in that bar on Tuesday nights (there were loads of other bars). I never went, being straight, but my gay friends talked about it.

What they said was, it was just incredibly relaxing to be somewhere where you weren’t constantly thinking about your sexuality. Which might seem weird, given this was a club centred on their sexuality but: this being the 90s, prejudice against LGB people was fairly widespread. Not just in terms of out and out assault, although that did happen, but general low-level hostility and fear. For a young adult coming out at university, life was a bit of a minefield and you had to spend a lot of time thinking about how people would react to what you said and did.

So having a space where everyone was LGB and everyone knew you were and was fine with it was a tremendous asset. You could have frank and honest converations about your experiences with slightly older people without worrying about a hostile or ignorant reaction; conversely, you just randomly chat any old shit without constantly worrying you were about to give yourself away. And of course you could freely chat people up without worrying about an adverse reaction. This was a safe space.

And it was safe because it kept some people out. Generic not-trying-to-be-offensive-but-potentially-a-bit-gauche straights like me, and also the other guys. Because there was an evangelical Christian Union* who had some very clear ideas about homosexuality that they were keen to share. These were unpleasant people, the leader of whom freely admitted in public that he hated people who didn’t believe exactly what he believed.

These guys were, of course, at perfect liberty to voice their beliefs that homosexuality was a sin etc. etc. They preached it. They handed out leaflets to this effect. They turned up to the Debating Society and spoke fervently on the matter from the floor. They had freedom of speech and thus the LGB (and T) students had plenty of opportunities to be confronted by people who disagreed with them, and ideas they didn’t like, hooray. But this didn’t happen in the SU bar on Tuesday nights, because they weren’t allowed in.

I write this because I wanted to ask @Novelty_Bobble:

Would it have been better if there were no LGB only spaces on campus? If so why?
If one of the DICCU lot had gone into the bar on Tuesday night wearing a T-shirt with the slogan “Love the sinner, hate the sin”, would that have been intentionally disruptive and harassing? If the LGB students assessed it as disruptive and harassing, who would be better placed to judge?
If the LGB society had thrown him out, would that have been good or bad?

And finally, if you think this is very different if you replace LGB Society with Multi-cultural Society and “Love the sinner, hate the sin” with “Police Lives Matter” are you completely sure you fully understand the context?

*It might have been an LGBT society but I think that’s me projecting a false memory back. It was the 90s, we all had a way to go.

*The university was Durham, which has a number of colleges and so the full name of this org was Durham Inter-Collegiate Christian Union. Or DICCU. Which, all things considered, was quite funny.

[MrDibble]

@Novelty_Bobble

I don’t think it is.

Your opinion isn’t the one that matters.