The Beauty of Safe Spaces

The phrase “safe space” has become a hot button term in recent years. Some take the term as an insult: how are people supposed to live in the real world when they curl up into a “safe space” as soon as a dissenter arises? Proponents defend the term as a way to enlighten discourse to new levels. 

Let’s set the record straight on safe spaces. The term “safe space” is frequently muddled and conflated. We should be separating, instead of merging, the definitions of safe spaces. One definition is applied to areas of civil discourse. In this capacity, safe spaces are areas where people can engage in meaningful discourse and take risks with their opinions without feeling attacked. We can call this discourse-based safe spaces. Opponents argue that, over time, safe spaces become places where people can retreat from defending their perspective and fall back on being uncomfortable. Frequently, right-wing pundits damn these spaces as obscuring true political discourse. This is, of course, distorted beyond any reasonable standard. The right believes that safe spaces, trigger warnings and microaggressions are avenues to avoid salient discussions. Not only is this perspective wrong, it is condescending and belittles opinion sharing. These spaces are tools that elevate discourse beyond the pinhole of extremism. 

The second definition of safe spaces is quite different. Non-discourse safe spaces are places of emotional healing, cultural support and shared experience. Clubs like ARCO, BSU and MSA are not places for the latest discourse and debate; they are places of shared experience in a country that grapples everyday with institutional discrimination, cruelty and prejudice. Clubs meant for historically marginalized groups are of paramount importance for fostering inclusion in country that promotes exclusion. 

Pundits will argue that clubs for marginalized populations are harping on identity politics and creating a divide. Some would even describe cultural or supportive clubs as “inhospitable.” First, the cultural clubs at Marist are incredibly welcoming. People on campus actively choose to avoid them because most likely everywhere is a safe space for them. More importantly, for marginalized populations, what about the inhospitality of this school, this state, this country? Safe spaces provide a place for recuperation and community. 

Detractors and conservative pundits do not want safe spaces. This is because the world is a safe space to some, while an unsafe space to others—we live in a white, cisgender, male hegemony. Because of this, the two definitions are conflated in a deliberate attempt to keep the status quo. If people need healing spaces, it implies something is harmful and hurting. But how can something be hurting in the land of the free and the home of the brave? The tricky part of acknowledging the positives of safe spaces is admitting that something is wrong in the first place. If something is wrong, how can you possibly argue for the continuation of oppressive systems that exist?

Furthermore, there is a clear distinction between dismissing hateful speech and allowing people to speak their mind. I take issue with the argument that cultural clubs at Marist should allow complete and open discourse during their meetings and events. The world constantly reminds marginalized populations about societal norms and oppressive institutions. Are we really talking about removing yet another area where marginalized people can feel safe? Why should a person, who, for instance, believes that institutional racism doesn’t exist speak his mind at a BSU meeting? What benefit does it serve? The place for discourse is in academic events, media platforms, day-to-day conversations, etc. Let’s foster dialog in the right spaces and dispense with this horrific notion that safe spaces are the problem and somehow denying marginalized populations their experience and existence isn’t the problem.  

There is no myth to safe spaces. There is a purposeful distortion of the truth by partisan radicals who do not want to listen or acknowledge the opposing view. By conflating the two definitions of safe spaces, the radical right frames all safe spaces as liberal breeding grounds. This conflation further perpetuates racist, xenophobic and bigoted sentiments. I am more than happy to engage in civil discourse with those that disagree with me. In fact, I love it. But let’s not diminish the importance of healthy healing spaces for people who need them — I need that space and you do to. Until I can go on a run without being screamed “faggot” at, which has happened to me twice at Marist, I want a place where I can seek support.