It is time to revisit one of the most contentious terms of the 21st century: safe spaces.
For years, arguments for against these communities fostered in colleges across the country have grown increasingly heated. Without bothering to agree on a proper definition for the term, those accusing safe spaces of existing as bubbles of ignorance, critical of the state of higher education, have been met with indignant responses from loyal college-aged defenders.

Those arguing colleges exist as homes of the “liberal snowflake culture” aiding only those who share the same opinion have only exacerbated confusion following last week’s presidential election.

In our opinion, not all of these arguments have been unsubstantiated. Safe spaces on liberal college campuses can often act as retreats for those leaning left to escape differing opinions and surround themselves only with people who share their views. They have become places that console more than teach and promote coddling over listening and debating.

This is unproductive.

A safe space that shuts down a point of view before it is fully expressed and demands a person change his mind or leave is no safe place at all. Given the intense bipartisan nature of this election, real “safe spaces” are more necessary than ever — places where students from across party lines don’t fear speaking out in front of their peers, so long as they are not targeting others with hateful words.

At Fordham, we have seen the community reacting to the election in often positive ways. Professors are opening up conversations in class to discuss the results. Administrators are reaching out via email urging the student body to come together in solidarity to heal and discuss. What they appear to be advocating for is what a safe space should be — a place that does not pit ideas against each other, demonizing one group of individuals and validating another.

Much of the discourse around the effectiveness of safe spaces has missed the point. A safe space should not be considered an insular area where students retreat to avoid triggers, but a place where anyone is given the chance to explain themselves and fully express their thoughts and opinions without fearing their peers will not just attack their ideas but attack them as human beings.

It is clear from the aftermath presidential election and the shock that ensued that some of us existed in echo chambers we didn’t even see. We need safe spaces now more than ever, but one’s that allow for everyone’s perspective, regardless of race, sex, gender expression, sexual identity, cultural background, religious affiliation and ability.
What we are calling for during this intense time is a redefining of safe spaces and how they are used.

We are Fordham students, above name calling and above transferring negative qualities onto other people based on their choice of two candidates for president. Everyone deserves to feel like they can engage in dialogue without being disrespected (barring outward statements of hatred towards another group of people).

In order for safe spaces to function, mutual discourse must take place. Dialogue can be confrontational – getting to the root of another perspective is imperative. But it should not be cold or cruel.

Universities are prime places for people of all different backgrounds and ideas to come together and learn from one another while maintaining dignity and respect.
Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University said in the New York Times,

“Universities are unlike other institutions in that they absolutely require that people challenge each other so that the truth can emerge from limited, biased, flawed individuals.
If they lose intellectual diversity, or if they develop norms of ‘safety’ that trump challenge, they die.”

We at The Fordham Ram agree with this sentiment.  We hope that students keep this in mind while engaging in productive, thoughtful conversations in the wake of this long and tiring election.