Thursday, March 23, 2017

The Whole Ball Game

"Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself." - Salman Rushdie

How safe is too safe? That's a question that a growing number of campuses are being forced to answer, as the student voices demanding that so-called "safe spaces" be implemented across the nation. A safe space is defined as "a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm." On the surface, and when implemented correctly and unobtrusively, they can serve both physical and emotional refuges for students, especially those who are members are traditionally marginalized or persecuted groups. In a sense, they're the physical version of much-maligned trigger warnings, intended to keep student s from being bombarded by discomfiting viewpoints and distressing material.

The development of safe spaces over the years is as historically unclear as it is controversial. Some trace their origins back to the feminist movements of the late 1960s and early 70s, while others believe it came from the gay and lesbian movement of the 1990s. On paper, the concept sounds like a solid, harmless idea; a place for students to refrain from experiencing persecution, bias, or other microaggressions so that all parties feel comfortable enough to discuss a particular topic. However, the problem emerges within the words "safe space" themselves; by designating a particular area as "safe", you're implying that everywhere else is "unsafe." Thus, it stands to reason that you'd want to make everywhere else "safe", too, logic which causes most of the issues with safe spaces on campuses today.

That logic came into play at Yale, one of America's most prestigious universities, in October of 2015. In response to a memo asking students not to wear "culturally insensitive", associate master (a title later removed after student complaints of racial overtones) Erika Christakis said: “Even if we could agree on how to avoid offense -- and I’ll note that no one around campus seems overly concerned about the offense taken by religiously conservative folks to skin-revealing costumes -- I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious … a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?" Apparently not. In the end, Christakis and her husband left Yale after student outcry, with accusations of racism and insensitivity abounding.

Incidents like this aren't isolated, either. I'm sure we can all remember the protests at the University of Missouri two years ago, where, among other things, student protests forced the resignation of the president and violated the First Amendment rights of student journalist Tim Tai by obstructing his right to report on the event. A student Twitter account run by the activists justified their actions by blaming white media distortion, apparently unaware of the fact that Tai is Asian American.

Credit: Mark Schierbecker 

In the video, both students and staff use intimidation, verbal and physical, to prevent Tai from doing his job. Where was his safe space, you may wonder? Well, therein lies the problem. By creating an environment of unilateral, conformist thinking and speech, the expression of alternative or contrasting opinions is shot down inside what's ostensibly a "safe" atmosphere of discussion. In what world is it acceptable, I wonder, to use physical force against another person for trying to document history on public property?  At the end of the video, the abuse of  safe spaces as a weapon of silencing other opinions is made painfully clear; a professor, Melissa Click, calls for "muscle" to remove Tai from the premises. She was later fired by the university for failing to uphold journalistic integrity, at a school famed for its journalism program, at which she was a professor in the communications department. 

Hopefully, the issue surrounding safe spaces is beginning to seem more clear. There's a fine line between free speech and censorship, and I don't envy universities the responsibility of determining which is which. Nor am I taking the position of many conservative speakers, politicians, and university officials, who want to see safe spaces done away with entirely. I think there's great value in having a place to go when you feel unsafe, so long as it's not turned into a weapon of censorship against those who aren't of the same opinion. Put like that, it seems pretty simple on paper; in practice, as we've seen, it's much harder. University officials are struggling to accurately respond to student demands while maintaining the integrity of the First Amendment, one of the cornerstones of this great nation. And students, as we all know, aren't always the most tolerant or helpful bunch when it comes to getting what they want. Time will tell if safe spaces are here to stay, or if the controversy surrounding them will explode into another politically polarized debate. Here's hoping it's the former. 

For those curious: Penn State has a safe space of its own, lodged right beneath our classroom in the Boucke Building: the LGBTQA Resource Center. 

Thursday, March 2, 2017

No Such Thing As Wisdom

"Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech." - Benjamin Franklin

When the term first started seeing popular use, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, political correctness stood for the ideals of fairness and open-mindedness. But today, "PC" is often seen as a curse within the English lexicon, and politicians and talking heads are more than happy to destroy its image and intent in exchange for a quick popularity boost. Political correctness has long been an enemy of conservative politicians in particular, with right-leaning leaders in democratic countries around the world, from Russian president Vladimir Putin to French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen , among many others. And surprising exactly no one, even our current president refuses to bow to those who wish he'd do a little more thinking before opening his mouth.

In theory, the term is meant to be neutral, referring to the avoidance of certain words that can lead to the marginalization and offense of others. However, the "correctness" aspect can also be seen as normative, radiating authority and leading to feelings of being talked down to, or even subordinated. By using this view to construe PC as a top-down, biased agenda on behalf of oversensitive and freedom-hating liberals, politicians turn it into another weapon to be used to defeat opponents and win over the voters.

Political correctness, especially when it comes to the free expression of speech and ideas, is an incredibly controversial topic on college campuses across the country. I mentioned FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, in a previous post; keep them in mind, because they come into play a lot regarding campus PC culture, even when we're talking about Penn State.

A prime example of the clash between free speech and PC visited this very campus just last year, in the form of famous (or infamous, depending on your politics) conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro. Despite a mob of protesters who went as far as trying to physically break down the doors of the Sparks Building, Shapiro delivered a lecture on diversity and political correctness to a packed auditorium. Taking aim at trigger warnings, safe spaces, micro-aggressions, and more, Shapiro brought home the point that PC is just another name for censorship of free speech, and free speech is central to Penn State's commitment to diversity and respect. At the end of the lecture, Shapiro left the audience with this final thought: “America is the greatest place in the history of the world for two reasons. One is because we get to say what we think without fear of the government cracking down on you, and the second reason is because this freedom means that your actions are correlated with your level of success,” Shapiro said. “The left is out to destroy both of these concepts.”

Credit: Max Petrosky/The Daily Collegian 

Whether you agree with Shapiro or not, it's hard to ignore the consequences of political correctness run amok. We're fortunate to have a campus that respects our right to it, for the most part; UPUA did help foot the bill for Shapiro, and many other controversial conservatives before and since, just as they do for for liberal speakers. Even this class stresses the importance of words on people's opinions and attitudes, and leaves it up to us to decide how to use them. Some students agree that our free speech is in danger, and we must do all we can to stop the spread of censorship. Others, however feel the opposite, and it's easy to see why. Penn State is constantly reminding us about how diverse, inclusive, and respectful our campus is; my response to that would be to ask whether any of the slogan-writers have ever seen college kids interact with each other, but that's beside the point. 

It's everyone's right to feel safe on this campus, just as it's everyone's right to say what they wish without fear of reprisal. The problem is that what's offensive or hurtful is entirely subjective, and forcing every person at Penn State to conform to one person's feelings is not only logistically impossible, but hurtful to the potential of having a healthy discourse. A favorite saying of Shapiro's is, "facts don't care about your feelings." Drop the political connotations, and that statement is all too true; like it or not, most everyone we ever meet in this world won't give a damn about how we feel about what they say. 

Holding us back from a slice of the real world by dressing up speech in flowery euphemisms won't do us a bit of good, as I've said before. However noble the intention, political correctness has become a partisan weapon to be used by pundits or abused by misguided do-gooders, and we're the ones paying the price.