Some whose forbares fought segration are wanting it back?

Post Reply New Topic

https://reason.com/reasontv/2015/11/18/ ... rotest-but


This emotive concept of "safe spaces" has reared its ugly head again. This is a questionable concept from a clinical perspective let alone a practical one.

Now before anyone misunderstands I want everyone to be safe, and I have no problem with concept of refuges for anyone in danger. There are however practical limitations of cocooning everyone.

How the idea of public spaces being assigned to anyone who shouts louder, and the exclusions of other they happen to deem privileged is obviously going to break first amendment rights an freedom of expression in general.

It is ironic that a son of millionaire and well educated goes on hunger strike demanding segregation in a university talking about privilege, becuase he holds the university responsible for a racial slung slur form a passing pickup truck.

I fail to see how university could stop someone from a pickup truck hurling abuse at anyone, I also fail to see how creating a segregated zone is going to help anyone achieve equality.

This seem to be more like #YuppieLivesMatter there are far more important issue facing minorities.

Another thing we try to do at university is teach people how to think in non-black/white terms. University is stressful enough without expecting students to explain why they shouldn't be lynched or raped, or why their culture shouldn't be reduced to a cartoon caricature.

We can have safe places FOR EVERYONE to learn and still have civil intellectual discussion, critism, free speech and counter speech.

Too often these days free speech is used as an excuse for a threatened dominant culture to punch down at groups they can no longer eaisly oppress.

How does this behaviour help teach people not the think in terms of black and white?

In one example an Asian student reporter simply wanted access to public areas of the university to do his job and he was effectively prevented from doing so by angry occupiers, who told he he had no right to be there when he did, and accosted him.

The safe spaces idea is flawed from the ground up, it is factionalist and segregationist. This is if you applying the standard they are requiring. They might as well be having a conversation Don Black.

This is not what Martin Luther King Jr. fought for. It is not what Rosa Parks fought for. Are you suggesting that any chancellor of any background simply give in to these people demands. You are the sociologist, what do you think will be the result of such enforced "safe places". Do you think it will stop racism, and discrimination?

Funny world where people are presumed guilty becuase of their socioeconomic background. Where have I heard of the before?

No one from any background is immune from irrationality. Anybody, however educated can have a dumb idea. This is one of such examples.

My experience of all of these movements is the importance of evidence and scrutiny at all stages, becuase there is a tendency for moral outrage to get the better of people when actually their social theories don't necessarily apply all the time. That is if people really want to do something about discrimination, instead of turning on potential allies.

Also how is the university responsible for every action that might happen?

Maybe becuase in the UK university accommodation and campuses are thought of slightly differently and we are not expected to looked after by university so much is it is place that we go to learn.

I still don't really understand how the university could actually guard against every possible incident that might happen, and certainly their ideas would not deliver on this. It would just make integration more difficult.

I also think that "safe spaces" concept is clinically unsound for treatment of PTSD and anxiety disorders. I have to be clear I'm not talking about organised private refuges or clinical centres or support groups. All of those thing can be meaningful alternative. I'm talking about enforced zones in public areas which are declared safe on the basis of segregation, due to a perception that one demographic is more of a threat to them and such zone are somehow inherently safer. Practical limitation of life make being about to remain in one almost impossible.

It is true that sufferer do need to take a gradual approach, and there for being in an area or place where they personally feel safer can be a part of the journey. However basic understanding of behavioral patterns and conditioning tell me, it could actual have quite negative effect on them long term to get caught up in this politics. First through he activity which will be quite stressful and secondly the actual zones reinforcing the idea that they need to be separated to be safe, and enviably they will not always have that to their dispose. What there really need is safe passage, and general security that we all need.

I also think that over use of "trigger waning" also have questionable clinical merit. This is perhaps a surprising view to have, becuase you could certainly envision that traumatic event being triggered by something close to the mark. However these memories can also be trigger by all sort of things, that you couldn't predict.

The notice itself is a reinforcing factor, that doesn't necessarily help them get better. It reinforces the minefield idea any clinician worth their salt will try to help he person, put manage occurrence better, help them gradually reduce the fallout of such memories.

We should be sympathetic in a way that could help rather than hinder.

I think I made my position pretty clear.

It's not unreasonable for students to expect the university to take steps to prevent people from going around and calling other people n****rs or singing about hanging n****rs.

It is not unreasonable for students to expect universities to keep patently offensive things (like those halloween costumes or how-to-rape-guides) off campus.

It is not unreasonable for students to expect a safe environment in which to learn.

That's feckless, offensive nonsense. It's calculated to intimidate and oppress minorities and women and prohibiting it on campus does not harm free speech.

It IS unreasonable to expect students bear the total burden of explaining why they should be treated with respect, not killed or raped.

School's hard enough without that.


PS

Nobody's talking about actually establishing zones where certain people will be excluded (unless you're a racist a**hole).

I don't think anyone with their head screwed on is doing that. I also don't expect people to lump whole demographic into being seen as a threat, becuase they are seen as privileged elite whether it is necessarily the case.

What doesn't any of that have to do with demanding "safe spaces". There are not using the term loosely they have quite specific ideas.

I believe in the principle of rights:

1. Rights are fundamental when they cannot be further distilled.
2. Fundamental rights are small in number for a reason, other are derivative or simply not fundamental.
3. The reason is: One person rights should not superpose another's especially fundamental rights. That is to say they are universal and once they impede someone's rights they are breaking the principle.

Therefore is someone suggests something that break this principle whether they intended it or not I have something to say about it. When it is actually affecting policy I definitely have soemthing to say about it.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 21 Nov 2015, 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually this has happened, people have faced aggression in these unofficial spaces simply for being there, and some have been justifying this including leader of these movement and academics. It is not just to do with race but other identity issues.

"You need to get out" and "I need some muscle over here" is a pretty clear message.

I think the main problem is people don't necessarily think things through. They join possibly a just cause, but they don't necessarily think through the implications of of what these groups advocate. They are being polarised in the process.

I think you're confusing tactics at a specific protest with the actual aims of the protest.

What to you think these safe spacers actually want?

...because the stuff you linked to suggests they're simply protesting to be free from racist a**holes. That's not unreasonable in my book.

1. If the leader/organiser of a protest act like that that should be treated as likely aims, until they state otherwise.
2. I think they genuinely don't know. I think they want to feel less oppressed or under attack which is fair enough, I don't necessarily think they have the right solutions in mind. Certainly preventing public access, and first amendment rights is shooting themselves in the foot. This is not like the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where the leadership had clear ideas and conviction.

They are actually protesting that the chancellor is not adhering to a demands which he cannot reasonably meet as it would not be practically possible, nor is it clear why some much anger is directed at him.

We are talking about someone calling someone a racial slur form pickup in passing, which may have hand nothing to do with university. This is not a student, that they are aware of that they could discipline. These is only this one account.

It not even clear what jurisdiction it comes under, where exactly it happened. I know you have campus police in the US.

Personally I'm against campus and school police forces. I think this is the wrong approach to take.

Campuses exist within areas, which must be policed in entirety. Although some universities sometimes have clear boundaries and others don't they are not jurisdiction in of themselves an should be treated as such. Some universities don't really have campuses at all, such as some London universities and their faculty are spread out all over the place. Others universities are themselves split in "collages" (e.g. Oxbridge) and the are difference independent institution responsible different aspects of university life.

University accommodation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the learning institution.

Universities themselves should be clear what responsibilities they take and what they offer, and this not uniform nor should it be.

Universities may provide some security of it own, but should not overlap the duties of law enforcement.

I also believe in Peelian principle with regard to policing.

Most of the student protest in my day, we directed at government policy or for some general demographic. Rather than directed at the very institution they are studying under or in some case employed by, and is not even clear how their demands could be satisfied.

In is not like the chancellor hasn't tried to engage with them, or this is a school which is particularly backwards or non-equable.

I think they are really protesting about intolerance in general but are making this a university specific issue rather than broader attitudes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ce/415080/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opini ... .html?_r=0

More "white people are the problem".

The message to "white people": don't live near blacks, don't hire blacks, don't have anything to do with them because they have a perverse mindset that *YOU* are a problem in their lives.

This isn't what most blacks are advocating. In fact the movement is quite white in origin, especially if we are talking about the techniques and social theories. The idea of safe spaces come from third wave feminism.

This is a just black component of a wider identity politics of this variety.

Most people are reasonable they give people the benefit of the doubt, and we are a dealing with an educated 'elite' if you like.

This is not about "black spaces". This is about blacks jumping up and down screaming "RACISM".

From the video:

"White oppression"
"White men invading black spaces"
Professor: "Problem with whiteness"
Black group: University President needs to apologize for "white privilege"
"Black power!"
"Blacks are in chains"
"White media can't understand black spaces"

So, the message to "white people": don't live near blacks, don't hire blacks, don't have anything to do with them because they have a perverse mindset that *YOU* are a problem in their lives.