University campuses are an important place to voice concerns, bring issues that matter to us to the forefront and learn about things that are important to other people. For example, there’s no missing the pro-vegan chalk messages that have been making their way onto Carleton’s walkways.
University is no place to hide from discourse, especially if it’s contentious discourse. For instance, I think critical discussion about religion is a good thing and not to be hidden. All too often conversations about religion, especially Islam, where multiple viewpoints are represented become a finger-pointing opportunity. The prevalence of this problem is not going unnoticed: ‘Dear Liberals: Being Critical of Islam is Not Racism’ was Shawn Moksvold’s provocative headline on a Huffington Post article published last year. Similar are the endless social media comments that have called Donald Trump supporters ‘racist’ because of Trump’s criticism of Islam.
Healthy criticism does not entail abuse or harassment. It never did and never will. Hate speech is, thankfully, a crime. However, wilful promotion of hatred or public incitement of hatred are not part of the problem I’m identifying here. Criticism entails questions being asked and answered, to the right people, and in the right manner.
‘Safe spaces’ only lose their credibility when they become what they aren’t: a place where you can expect silence where you want it.
Universities should not be that place.
Safe spaces are credible in relation to trauma and areas of discourse which, truly, are sensitive subjects, like sexual assault. There would be little credibility in arguing about certain things being off limits for university students in general though. As university students, and especially for my journalism peers, we shouldn’t shy away from the provocation and anger caused by controversial issues. They are to be blown wide open, for whomever wants to be around for it. Universities should be a reflection of the world.
Useful conversation involves reasoned opinions on both sides and an acknowledgement of possible value on both sides. Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with disagreement, and besides, how can our opinions evolve to better reflect the truth, if we aren’t open to talking with anyone who disagrees with us? I’m not saying criticism can’t go too far. But ignorant speech isn’t a crime.
And when it isn’t ignorant speech, but only distasteful speech to some, why is it allowed to be shut down? Speech should not fit into a square labelled ‘okay.’
It is not a thin grey line between the shunning of not-okay opinions and a free-for-all of hateful speech. There is a happy medium, and it involves an understanding that there is likely value in opinions we don’t agree with, if we’d just hear them out.
But offense is easily taken.
Being offended isn’t a good enough reason to shut something up. Gladly enough, you can wear a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat in the cafeteria if you want to. A visible difference in political opinion should not lead to hair-triggering, name-calling and disrespect. To better the conversation, we can be more open to talking, and we can recognize that what we see isn’t always what it seems. There is learning to be done through disagreement, and disagreement doesn’t have to entail negation of value, personal attack or negative assumptions.
If we students can recognize the possibility of value in all types of opinions, we’d be in a better place.
