I’m a Conservative Professor Who Opposed Safe Spaces. I Was Wrong | Hacker News Reader

I’m a Conservative Professor Who Opposed Safe Spaces. I Was Wrong

nytimes.com

6 pointscrackercrews11 comments

This title seems misleading. It isn't a conservative professor defending "safe spaces". It's a conservative professor who wants a type of space that can be called a "safe space" but that is not at all what the term means in common usage.

I wonder how many people will see the headline and erroneously feel confirmed about whether safe spaces are good.

Why post an article that you think is deceptive?

I don't think the opinion piece is deceptive. I think the headline is misleading. The piece itself is still worth reading. Headlines are typically not written by authors. I commented on the title to save others the trouble of doing so.

I don't follow. The title seems to capture the essence of the article.

"I once opposed efforts to create a classroom climate in which students are protected from speech they find emotionally upsetting"

"Now I think that ... we need to take the comfort of students far more seriously."

> Instead, let’s elaborate and defend our own version of safe spaces.

What he is calling for doesn't seem to be the same as what have typically been known as "safe spaces". His reference to taking the comfort of students more seriously seems to be related to their fear of being ostracized for their opinions. That's different from the normal concern for comfort in safe spaces, which focuses on being offended or triggered by others' speech.

I dunno, gay people are used to be ostracized for their "opinion" that other people of their gender are hot.

With a little distance it is hard to tell the difference between young left-wingers from young right-wingers. Left-wingers seem resentful that the police have guns. Right-wingers seem resentful that Trump got kicked off twitter. Either way they are resentful.

Actually, I thought that this article was very well reasoned.

https://archive.ph/BfC1m

I freely admit I expected it to be a conservative professor claiming that conservative students and conservative ideas needed to be protected but the article seems much savvier that that. Am I missing something? Do you read this as a hoax or a lampooning or aping of "safe spaces" because I missed that interpretation.

I thought it was a reasonable article also. But it isn't a defense of "safe spaces" as they are commonly referred to. Those are spaces where certain subjects won't be brought up for fear of offending or triggering others. What the professor proposes is a different sort of space with different conversational norms.

Just to clarify, I don't think it was a bad opinion piece. I thought the title was provocative and misleading.

Thanks. I'll freely admit to not knowing/understanding the norms and etymology of the term.

I was under the impression that these were spaces where people (traditionally marginalized peoples) could speak about their beliefs and feelings particularly as they related to the dominant norms without fear that their view points would be further marginalized or silenced.

At some level, that seems also to be what the professor is now advocating for as well. Though perhaps he may be doing so only because the marginalization is (also) being inflicted on those with political views he supports.

that's exactly what safe spaces should be: everyone is treated with respect. ideally this should happen everywhere, but the problem is that we still need to learn how to engage with each other respectfully. the spaces that this professor creates are where this can be learned.

other safe spaces that are somehow free of anything potentially offensive can only function with heavy censorship and lead to nowhere.

if we want to get rid of racism for example, we need to engage with racists and enable a respectful and sensible debate. locking them out will not help them change their mind and understanding. same goes for any other issue.

> But it isn't a defense of "safe spaces" as they are commonly referred to. Those are spaces where certain subjects won't be brought up for fear of offending or triggering others.

This is not a definition of safe spaces, but rather a common dynamic that may appear in any context. A safe space, properly understood, is simply a space where participants are not made to feel socially or physically unsafe as a result of their participation: this is exactly how OP is using the term. By contrast if you take seriously the radical idea that even the slightest "microaggression" is an act of violence and thus a physical threat, the logical consequence is to view everywhere as not-safe; the whole idea of a safe space becomes altogether self-defeating!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com