Another professor bites the dust

[Parasaurolophus]

We can stop saying that "free speech" refers to government censorship.

We know.

There must be places allowing, nay, inviting, disagreement.

Sacrilege!! 

Hypersensitivity does not allow for such a space. 

Echo-chambers for all!!!!

It would be interesting to see how people who favour "safe spaces" would make a clear distinction between a "safe space" and an "echo chamber", that isn't defined by the ideology involved. ( In other words, no saying "WE have safe spaces; THEY have echo chambers.")

Here's a start. It doesn't address the notion of safe spaces, but you'll see that the account of echo chambers (viz., "a social structure from which other relevant voices have been actively discredited") is easily distinguished from the notion of a safe space (a social space in which a group of people can trust that they won't face discrimination or harassment). Indeed, the author does so here, in this podcast episode on a second article building on the ideas in that first essay (which is itself a popularized version of an academic article).

[dismalist]

We can stop saying that "free speech" refers to government censorship.

We know.

There must be places allowing, nay, inviting, disagreement.

Sacrilege!! 

Hypersensitivity does not allow for such a space. 

Echo-chambers for all!!!!

It would be interesting to see how people who favour "safe spaces" would make a clear distinction between a "safe space" and an "echo chamber", that isn't defined by the ideology involved. ( In other words, no saying "WE have safe spaces; THEY have echo chambers.")

Here's a start. It doesn't address the notion of safe spaces, but you'll see that the account of echo chambers (viz., "a social structure from which other relevant voices have been actively discredited") is easily distinguished from the notion of a safe space (a social space in which a group of people can trust that they won't face discrimination or harassment). Indeed, the author does so here, in this podcast episode on a second article building on the ideas in that first essay (which is itself a popularized version of an academic article).

The article, making a distinction between exclusion by omission and exclusion by discrediting, is insightful. I'm sure both exist. How "safe space" fits in here doesn't matter too much.

People exclude others all the time. Not everyone can be my friend, drinking buddy or colleague, and so on. None of this is bad as long as there is variety and competition and choice.

Alas, the political process will tend to try to control and limit choice as apparently a sufficient number of voters are intolerant.

[marshwiggle]

We can stop saying that "free speech" refers to government censorship.

We know.

There must be places allowing, nay, inviting, disagreement.

Sacrilege!! 

Hypersensitivity does not allow for such a space. 

Echo-chambers for all!!!!

It would be interesting to see how people who favour "safe spaces" would make a clear distinction between a "safe space" and an "echo chamber", that isn't defined by the ideology involved. ( In other words, no saying "WE have safe spaces; THEY have echo chambers.")

Here's a start. It doesn't address the notion of safe spaces, but you'll see that the account of echo chambers (viz., "a social structure from which other relevant voices have been actively discredited") is easily distinguished from the notion of a safe space (a social space in which a group of people can trust that they won't face discrimination or harassment). Indeed, the author does so here, in this podcast episode on a second article building on the ideas in that first essay (which is itself a popularized version of an academic article).

I'm not through it all yet, but it would seem a safe space would be more like an "epistemic bubble" by those definitions.

This is good:

Here's a basic check: does a community's belief system actively undermine the trustworthiness of any outsiders who don't subscribe to its central dogmas? Then it's probably an echo chamber.

That's ideology-neutral but useful.

[downer]

I've seen some arguments that middle and high school classrooms should be safe spaces. I'm not against that. I'm less ready to extend the idea to college classrooms.

Professors' offices can be safe spaces. LGB/TQetc groups can be safe spaces. Black groups can provide safe spaces.

I find the idea that college classrooms should be "safe spaces" problematic until those terms are clearly defined. Sites like this https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/publications/2020/apr/creating-safe-spaces-students-classroom don't reassure me. The standards of scholarship and evidence are so low that it is hard to take seriously. It is very similar to what I've seen recommended at one of the places I teach.

[marshwiggle]

I've seen some arguments that middle and high school classrooms should be safe spaces. I'm not against that. I'm less ready to extend the idea to college classrooms.

Professors' offices can be safe spaces. LGB/TQetc groups can be safe spaces. Black groups can provide safe spaces.

I find the idea that college classrooms should be "safe spaces" problematic until those terms are clearly defined. Sites like this https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/publications/2020/apr/creating-safe-spaces-students-classroom don't reassure me. The standards of scholarship and evidence are so low that it is hard to take seriously. It is very similar to what I've seen recommended at one of the places I teach.

I'm not sure, depending on the definition, that professor's offices can be safe spaces. Being honest about the fact that a student is failing, and having any discussion of reasons why, would often be very distressing.

[dismalist]

I've seen some arguments that middle and high school classrooms should be safe spaces. I'm not against that. I'm less ready to extend the idea to college classrooms.

Professors' offices can be safe spaces. LGB/TQetc groups can be safe spaces. Black groups can provide safe spaces.

I find the idea that college classrooms should be "safe spaces" problematic until those terms are clearly defined. Sites like this https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/publications/2020/apr/creating-safe-spaces-students-classroom don't reassure me. The standards of scholarship and evidence are so low that it is hard to take seriously. It is very similar to what I've seen recommended at one of the places I teach.

I'm not sure, depending on the definition, that professor's offices can be safe spaces. Being honest about the fact that a student is failing, and having any discussion of reasons why, would often be very distressing.

Having or declaring safe spaces in high school or college is not a problem if one can opt out of the corresponding high school or college.

[My impression -- no data -- is that all this safe space nonsense is a pathology of selective and high priced colleges. I read somewhere that the kids are behind this, not the feared left-wing faculty. They must be damned rich kids to be able to afford refusing contact with reality.  Anyway, if that's true, we already have choice along that dimension, which is why I am so sanguine about cancellation and such.]

[Ruralguy]

Every time a professor opens their mouth *someone* is going to be uncomfortable, whether it be material they don't understand, or material that makes them uncomfortable or just discussing grade standards. However, I think we know the difference between that and some professors who like to be jerks on purpose to prove some kind of point.

[downer]

Every time a professor opens their mouth *someone* is going to be uncomfortable, whether it be material they don't understand, or material that makes them uncomfortable or just discussing grade standards. However, I think we know the difference between that and some professors who like to be jerks on purpose to prove some kind of point.

I think the whole discourse of mircroaggressions and implicit bias is meant to undermine precisely this distinction.

[marshwiggle]

Every time a professor opens their mouth *someone* is going to be uncomfortable, whether it be material they don't understand, or material that makes them uncomfortable or just discussing grade standards. However, I think we know the difference between that and some professors who like to be jerks on purpose to prove some kind of point.

I think the whole discourse of mircroaggressions and implicit bias is meant to undermine precisely this distinction.

Precisely, because the whole emphasis is on how a statement is received, rather than on the intent with which it is delivered.

[mahagonny]

I've seen some arguments that middle and high school classrooms should be safe spaces. I'm not against that. I'm less ready to extend the idea to college classrooms.

Professors' offices can be safe spaces. LGB/TQetc groups can be safe spaces. Black groups can provide safe spaces.

Who decides who's black though? My roommate from years ago, Jerry, had one black parent and one white parent. His skin was dark, while his biological brother, Jeff, had light skin.  Is only Jerry invited?

[Parasaurolophus]

Every time a professor opens their mouth *someone* is going to be uncomfortable, whether it be material they don't understand, or material that makes them uncomfortable or just discussing grade standards. However, I think we know the difference between that and some professors who like to be jerks on purpose to prove some kind of point.

I think the whole discourse of mircroaggressions and implicit bias is meant to undermine precisely this distinction.

Precisely, because the whole emphasis is on how a statement is received, rather than on the intent with which it is delivered.

The Humpty Dumpty theory of language is not a very good one.

Relativism in any domain isn't sually very productive. If that's the way you incline, try contextualism instead.

[Parasaurolophus]

I'm not through it all yet, but it would seem a safe space would be more like an "epistemic bubble" by those definitions.

I don't really think so. A safe space isn't really an epistemic space, nor is it one from which relevant voices are excluded by omission (rather: hostile voices are excluded by design--but, again, it's not really an epistemological thing).

[downer]

From what I've seen of most safe space labeling, it's primary goal was to identify places on campus where students could feel safe. It wasn't so much about making all classrooms safe. I saw it first with GLBT groups. It seems that the idea has been extended with race and ethnic identity issues. But I rarely see any campus spaces identified as "safe" for anyone in that intended way.

I've not been required to make my classroom "safe." I've not heard of anyone who has. There is a push to encourage faculty at one place to be sensitive to a variety of identity issues, which is done in a good willed but ham fisted way. It has had almost no real effect on what faculty do in the classroom.

[mahagonny]

I've not been required to make my classroom "safe." I've not heard of anyone who has. There is a push to encourage faculty at one place to be sensitive to a variety of identity issues, which is done in a good willed but ham fisted way. It has had almost no real effect on what faculty do in the classroom.

Diversity Equity and Inclusion are at their best when they are looking busy but doing nothing.

[mahagonny]

From what I've seen of most safe space labeling, it's primary goal was to identify places on campus where students could feel safe.

Having worked  as an academic for years, I'm always on the lookout for duplicity. The stated goal is what you named, but the fortifying of liberal politics is what is going on. Change. As if we had all agreed that change was needed. But no agreement was ever even asked for.
Interesting piece: https://quillette.com/2022/03/05/i-signed-up-to-study-journalism-what-they-taught-me-was-activism/

Go to this website and search for 'safe spaces.' You get 2940 hits. How many are about having spaces where someone like the author of the quillette piece may feel safe are there? https://www.ryerson.ca/search/#safe%20spaces