Then the thing to do is for them to put on their big-boy/girl pants and say “Where ever I am, THERE’S the ‘safe space’”.
About…what? 5 years back, gay kids decided that the best way to make sure their voices were heard was to have a “day of silence”. :rolleyes: I’m incredibly sympathetic to gay rights, and to the generally terrible treatment of gay kids, but a “day of silence” is a stupid way of protesting, as is locking yourself in a back-office somewhere sharing hugs.
Of course. But I don’t think it’s appropriate for universities to invite David Duke or Fred Phelps to speak – they don’t have any useful information or viewpoints to offer. The same goes for other people with careers in bigotry, in my opinion. I don’t believe that such speech should be banned by law – everyone is free to say anything they want (short of “fire!”, etc.) in public. But not everyone is free to get a public venue, paid for by others, to speak, and I think it’s appropriate for universities to draw the line at professional bigots.
Rape victims should just suck it up! Quit whining, rape victims, about people calling you liars when you tell your story. That’s just part of college!
Student groups are sometimes hosting the event and paying for the event including security to keep left wing violence away. Shouldn’t people be able to exercise their first amendment right to assemble? Especially if other groups are offered the same opportunities?
What stops rape victims from meeting at a private or reserved venue? Hmm? You can’t expect to claim public space for your own pet cause. Regardless of the emotional tenderness of the subject.
The problem is that “bigot” and “racist” have become about as over-used today as “Nazi” was in it’s hey-day. I’d guess that just about everyone who has expressed controversial opinions in public forums have had some opponent call them a racist, bigot, Nazi, or something along those lines. There’s a serious argument being made on campuses today that all whites are racist. Should we just never invite any white speakers to campus again?
You’re arguing with stuff you’re imagining, not words I wrote.
If you’re going for rape victims, the analogy would be, you “safe space” types would like them to hide in back rooms sucking their thumbs and giving into bigotry and I would be advocating them saying “Screw this. I will discuss my situation when and where I choose and not be crammed back into a closet”
Violence is always inappropriate, IMO, and any violent students should be punished. I believe university codes of conduct usually explicitly ban bigoted actions on campus, and I think it’s reasonable for this to apply to potential guest speakers as well. Have any court cases tested this principle as to whether it violates the first amendment?
Potentially money or other resources. But this isn’t about a pet cause, IMO – it’s about a serious problem on college campuses (sexual assault and rape), and IMO ensuring victims have safe places to speak without being called liars is a part of addressing this problem.
Complaints about supposed overusage of “bigot” and “racist” are also overused. 
I have no problem with calling people who say bigoted, misogynistic, and racist things bigots, misogynists, or racists. And I don’t think any argument that “all whites are racist” is a “serious” one.
No, I’d like a scenario in which rape victims can choose. Some really might be traumatized to the point that they’re scared to talk unless they’re sure it’s “safe”. Others might prefer to speak out in public, outside of a safe space. I think it’s reasonable for universities to take both possibilities into account with compassion.
https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus
Provides a good rebuttal against the free speech for me but not for thee proponents.
Hopefully the ACLU is on the approved source list.
Well yes, absolutely. I am very sympathetic to the historical and present-day injustices suffered by many groups so that’s my gut reaction. Especially when it’s their safe space.
(Bolding added) I kindof read past that aspect of the linked piece. You quote occurs at the beginning and I don’t see “public spaces” mentioned thereafter. So I understood “safe spaces” to refer more to private places of association for these groups. Claiming public spaces for themselves is where I might well agree things turn iffy.
I think I agree with that. University codes that ban actions like hanging nooses in the quad, or spray painting swastikas on the Jewish kid’s door, and treat those offenses as threats and more than mere vandalism, seem reasonable to me, but I agree with the ACLU that bans on mere speech are inappropriate and counter-productive. But that doesn’t mean that the university needs to invite outside speakers who promote bigoted speech. And if they do, I still would oppose violence in any protests against them.
Are you saying that you don’t take their arguments seriously or that you don’t believe they are being serious when presenting the argument?
Fortunately, federal law generally prohibits such race-based exclusions (among other “classes”).
If they want to exclude disruptive or rude students because of their disruptive or rude actions, that’s fine. If they want to exclude men just because they are men, or whites just because they are white, that’s wrong (and reprehensible, appalling, and “deplorable”).
If it’s explicitly “all whites are racist”, full stop, rather than something like “all white people are susceptible to the racism prevalent in culture and society at large” or something like that, then I don’t take their argument seriously.
I’m delighted to hear that. If you were the one in charge of the approved / not-approved speaker list, I might rest easy. But you’re not. It’s some of the same people that, in all seriousness, make the “all whites are racist” argument that would be deciding which speakers can and can’t speak on campus.
Do you have a cite for this? I know some liberals are loons, but I’d like to see the exact lunacy you’re talking about.
The notion that questioning of subjective accounts is harmful and so must be suppressed is all part of the whole “post truth” mess we find ourselves in, where subjective feelings and impressions are considered superior and more reliable than objective notions of truth (and skepticism concerning claims of the same).
For better or worse, though, student shenanigans of this sort are about the least harmful manifestation of that phenomenon.
Look at the whole Trump campaign - his basic message is that peculiar student notion writ large (and turned against the Left): how dare anyone question that his (mostly White) followers feel deprived and put-upon? If you question those claims, you must be part of the “elites” they claim are oppressing them. “Questioning” is a form of oppression, akin to harassment, and so a means for the “elites” to maintain or enhance their power.
This means of structuring discourse (so that claims of victimization are basically immune from skepticism because skepticism is further victimization) is strangely potent, and it has migrated from mostly the political left using it, to mostly the political right using it.
The problem is that it allows people to completely divorce themselves from reality.
This is always easier to see in one’s ideological enemies than in one’s ideological friends.
It is, for example, obvious to those on the left that White folks claiming excessive “victimization” are, mostly, off their rocker - considering White privilege (despite whatever individual circumstances). It is harder for folks on the left to see how students and professors at prestigious universities claiming “victimhood” can also appear to be, mostly, off their rocker - to outsiders such folks look quite “privileged”, again whatever their individual circumstances.
Frankly, some universities need to do a better job of questioning accounts of rape. Duke and UVA come to mind, for starters.
I’m sorry, I wondered into the wrong thread. I thought this debate was about racial segregation and not about rape survivor support groups.