Over the last year, free speech activism has been roundly criticized. Duh! Many people think that controversial and hateful ideas do not belong in the classroom. Instead of rolling eyes at them and ignoring their arguments, we should concede that their arguments have some merit.
Those calling for sensitivity and the physical removal of bad ideas have a point. Maybe some students cannot handle the rigors of the current university life. Perhaps using anonymous bias hotlines is something that some students benefit from. I can understand why someone would want to remove someone promoting “negative stereotypes” from their organizations. Furthermore, it could be the case that inequity manifests in vigorous and open debate. Some students may not be able to handle university life.
Maybe free speech advocates don’t completely understand the perspective of people who claim that free speech is built by white men, for white men. Let’s take advocates at their word and give them what they want. If they want to “do the work” of building a university based on the value of inclusion and sensitivity, advocates of free expression should welcome it.
Recently, University of Connecticut’s new student body president argued that offense is not protected by free speech. What would such an educational institution look like? Perhaps a modest proposal is in order. Since open inquiry is dangerous to some, and colleges are too unsafe and triggering, perhaps society would do well to create a ‘Safe Space’ university. Creating SSU would give the emotionally fragile the education they deserve, while not subjecting those who disagree to the same intellectual palate. This could be the panacea both sides of the free speech debate have been looking for.
Right now, there’s a lot of conflicts that happen on campus about who is allowed to speak at on campus. By providing an alternative option for those who wish to not have their ideas and sensibilities challenged, everyone is able to get what they want. Some topics hurt to even discuss, and SSU sees no purpose in recreating pain and trauma. Speakers like Noam Chomsky, the Dalai Lama, and Jordan Peterson with their divisive views would have no place on campus. SSU will do what is necessary to maintain and preserve deeply held convictions. SSU will put in place a speaker screening process where every speaker is put to a consensus vote. Even thinking about banning some speakers may prove traumatic, which is why there needs to be a protocol to protect students from thinking about these repugnant people. Next to the ballot box, there will be saferooms that will provide the necessary support to students. A room filled with beanbag chairs, Peppa Pig on repeat, and a trained social worker will be necessary to guarantee the safety that distinguishes SSU. SSU will support its students and create an “Offense Hotline” so that any show of aggression or even dissent is able to be quashed by administrators before students are traumatized.
SSU will utilize cutting-edge techniques to protect their students from emotional harm in the classroom. Prior to every class, the lectures are shared with an Office of Love & Inclusion to remove any potentially discomforting ideas, and to provide trigger warnings to any topics that students could potentially find offensive. The transcripts are then sent to students in advance who are given the ability to remove uncomfortable topics from the curricula. As a last resort, every desk will be transfixed with a grey panic button so that students who are feeling distress or heart palpitations need not express that to the entire class. U.S. history will not cover any topics that make white students, or BIPOC upset including but not limited to Founding Fathers, Slavery, Exclusion of Immigrants, Race Massacres, the KKK, U.S. foreign policy, religious fundamentalism, cruelty to native Americans, The Declaration of Independence (don’t want to upset the British exchange student), the Constitution, FDR’s policies, war, peace, the United Nations, socialism, fascism, etc. Instructors will be trained to de-escalate disagreement and will have negotiators on call to prevent anyone losing their cool. No one needs to worry about nasty left or right-wing speakers on campus because the student code will heavily punish anyone who even thinks about creating a hostile environment. Further, everyone gets an A because there are socioeconomic factors that affect GPA. Giving people different grades rank students unfairly and creates an unacceptable hierarchy that must be abolished.
SSU’s libraries will be a pride of the university. No student will feel uncomfortable reading To Kill A Mockingbird, nor will students feel uncomfortable watching others read books they find undesirable. Books that fail to live up to the moral standards of the university will be heavily redacted if not removed. The administration will make a conscious effort to avoid books with complicated vocabulary so that students who struggle to read at a college level do not feel stigmatized. Picture books and nonviolent comics will fill the shelves, all while the Dewey Decimal system is swapped out in favor of a less discriminatory system, one that allows any book to have an equal chance of being found anywhere. The covers of books will be in grey so that the colorblind are not excluded from a fair chance to enjoy book covers like everyone else.
Sports at SSU will be aimed at inclusivity and widespread acceptance. Any team that rejects any of its members for any reason will be prohibited. Rejection hurts, and if SSU is good at anything, it is preventing emotional harm. There will only be one sports team, involved in coordinated swimming. Other sports involve score and measurement which often feels uncomfortable if one is losing. We can take a page out of Bergeron’s book and make more apt swimmers wear weights to prevent them from making others feel insecure. All competition will be abolished, and students will have the ability to collaborate without worrying about feeling worse than anyone else. This will inspire the self-confidence in students that students need to go out and face the world. To make sure every player feels included, students must participate in both land acknowledgements and standing for the national anthem, because doing otherwise would hurt those who feel strongly.
The money that SSU saves by removing extraneous competitive sports will go towards essential services. Tuition will include 24/7 access to frolicking puppies and trained therapists. Students will be able to swim in serene lakes, make friends with people just like them, participate in dance circles, play catch, recite poetry, and cut out paper snowflakes. Dorms will be adorned with graphics of Thomas the Tank Engine or Moana. Those with sleeping difficulties will have access to as many mattresses as necessary, preferably stacked on top of each other to insulate themselves from the assault of lentil-like objects. Topics like “Playing with Dog 101”, “Nature Hikes 303”, and “Watch Disney 204” will replace difficult, unfair topics like mathematics that are inexplicably linked to colonialism.
SSU will guarantee a healthy cruelty-free vegan diet for all its students. Since some find the consumption of meat unconscionable, and see sacrilege in watching others feast on corpses, one must avoid all forms of cruelty in creating food. Nuts and gluten will have to go because it is inherently inequitable that students are not able to eat what others enjoy. Similarly, some students cannot handle spice in their food and feel excluded from the social functions if spices are allowed on campus. Thus, cumin and sriracha go on the chopping block. Allergen-free ice cream will be on standby for those who want dessert, and administrators will be tasked with holding chewable sedatives in the case that a student spontaneously succumbs to panic.
Those of us not lucky enough to go to SSU will be subject to challenging material that requires hard work and dedication. Our sensibilities need not be respected, and we won’t necessarily have our ideas validated or our mediocre thoughts lauded. Instead, we’ll have to engage in challenging discussions that sometimes leave us feeling battered and bruised. We’ll have to tough out speakers who disgust us. Our university will make no attempt to shelter us from controversy and offense, and we’ll have to read books by repugnant authors that make us think. Perhaps those at SSU will think others like myself are masochists for observing these norms but providing them the ability to opt-out of an education, I think we’ll be doing them, and everyone else a massive favor
I’m putting this below my article because I have strong opinions about how I wasn’t able to publish this initially.
The editors at the Daily Campus thought this post was too much. I tried to challenge the Editor in Chief and the Opinion Section editor, but to no avail. They said that:
“I understand you’re interested in satire, but satirizing trauma, mental health concerns, issues such as racism and sexism, and your mentions of various historical violences are really not things we’re interested in publishing. These are very serious topics, and likewise we think you should reserve your thoughts about those issues for a serious article, or have this article be published in a different outlet. Alternatively, you could re-write it as a non-satirical piece and just voice your true opinion about the safe space universities you discuss. I’m sorry if anything I’ve said in the past has led to uncertainty about what topics would and would not be acceptable to satirize while writing for Opinion.”
When I pressed this issue with the editor and chief, and pointed out how opinions opposite mine, without strong editorial freedom would not likely have been published, I was met with similar nonsense.
“Thank you for reaching out. It is the job of our editors here at The Daily Campus to facilitate the creation of content and prepare stories for publication. All stories at The Daily Campus undergo workshopping, so this is not an unusual situation. The goal of opinion stories at The Daily Campus is to present an argument and elaborate on it to our readership. I encourage you to work with ———- and —— to create a reworked opinion piece about the issues you are discussing.
Additionally, the use of satire in stories at The Daily Campus has always warranted extra discussion between the executive team and opinion editors. In this case we both believe that your argument is not enhanced by the use of satire. Please let me know if there is anything else I can clarify with you.”
This is obviously political, and I’m not convinced that exercising independent judgement this would have been turned down.
I actually tried to become a staff columnist at one point, and was turned down because I “miss deadlines” despite the fact that at worst, one article was late AND most staffers regularly turn in stuff late. We’ll see what the future has to offer though!
Isadore Johnson's Website 