Here’s an idea: we want our classrooms and campuses to be safe spaces for everyone to be able to learn and explore new concepts and information. That shouldn’t be such a controversial statement, should it? Well, that depends. What does “safe” mean? What does "everyone" mean? Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of the history of education, asserts that college campuses should not be safe spaces, and he explains why in this January 2019 Chronicle of Higher Education essay.
Zimmerman, “College campuses should not be safe spaces”
- Zimmerman points to a clear distinction between actions and words, and he seems to be arguing that words and ideas, by themselves, cannot cause actual harm. Is that, in fact, what he is suggesting? Why do you think that? Point to specific passages to support your reasoning. Do you think that words and ideas are harmless? Why or why not?
- Zimmerman reports that many students and faculty members censor themselves and refrain from commenting in class to avoid either giving offense or exposing themselves to criticism. It would be very surprising, however, to find someone who has never kept silent on any topic, regardless of the circumstances. Although Zimmerman laments such self-censorship, sometimes there may be good reasons for withholding comment. Have you ever silenced yourself in an academic setting, preferring to “smile and nod” and go along to get along? If you have, describe the conversation and your reasons for holding back. In retrospect, did you make the best choice? What recommendation would you make to a student in a situation similar to yours?
- One of Zimmerman’s best class discussions ever, he relates, was in a program for incarcerated students, and he backs up his own observation with the views of another professor in the same program. According to Zimmerman, the “students in prison don’t hold back” because they’ve “borne witness to real violence.” Knowing what we know about the world (violence occurs in many places, public and private, while numerous people serve jail terms for non-violent offenses), how well does Zimmerman’s reasoning hold up? What other factors might account for the frank and free expression of the incarcerated students? Explain your reasoning.
- Among the many problems with trying to make universities “safe spaces” for everyone is the definition and interpretation of “safe.” What does “safe” mean to you? When do you (or would you) feel safe? What conditions have to exist in order to ensure your sense of safety? Write an essay addressing these questions. Use Zimmerman as your They Say, and in your essay, consider the effects of words, actions, ideas or concepts, and symbols.
They Say I Blog 
Zimmerman’s argument makes perfect sense. Students should not be sheltered on campus, but rather challenged mentally regardless of the topic. School is designed to push the student to become the brightest thinker possible. Not to mention, schools can not shelter students forever. Someday the students will wake up and become apart of the cruel “real-world,” wishing schools were not so sheltered.
LikeLike
In a world of everyone being offended by every small details and it does hurt the students that want to learn and want to be challenge, then themselves get distracted and get caught up in these things,they forget about their education.
LikeLike
I indeed agree with Zimmerman’s statement: that college should not host students in a room to make them feel “safe”. College is a place to learn and grow, not to be pacified into thinking that everything is okay. Once out of college these students housed in a “safe place”, will think that they can take a break when life gets hard or the work load becomes to much for their insecure minds.
LikeLike
I like Zimmerman’s argument, he makes great points about his beliefs. I personally believe students should not have a safe space on campus, their is no need for one. In our society today it is all about pushing our young adults to their limits and challeging them. If you shelter these students in school what will they do when they get in the real world and have no safe space to go to? Our students need to know that their is not always gonna be a safe space and that you need to be ready for the challenges that come their way and not to run to your safe space when times get tuff but to man up and face reality.
LikeLike
Zimmerman’s argument makes a great point. College is an opportunity for young people such as; high school seniors, high school graduates, and young adult, to leave home and explore further education that leads into career or job opportunity. College has been a great way to continue your education and learning how to work with other people who might have different points of view on different things. I dont believe in having a “Safe Place” while at college benefits anybody. College gives many options such as; having abroad study, clubs, etc, to students, giving them great opportunites to grow and learn.
LikeLike
I agree with Zimmerman’s point of view on students not being sheltered on campus. College students have come to an age where they are learning to be on their own and get a taste of the real world. Sheltering young adults and keeping them in a “safe place” could potentially set them up for failure in their post college life. Students might feel that when the real world gets tough they can just take a quick break and stay in their safe place when that will more than liekly set you back. We live in a world today where everyone is so easily offended just by the word choice we use. Sheltering college students will only continue to mold this world and fill it with people who do not know how to handle their own battles liek adults, instead they will always try and run to their “safe space”.
LikeLike
There have been times where I had to go along with other peoples opinions in an academic setting to avoid causing more drama than necessary. Specific scenarios are when people start yelling about something, usually politcal, that they have a certian, slightly radical veiw on. It may not always be in your best interest to attack their arguements when they’re in such a state. There are times to bite your toungue and let people have their own opinions without shooting them down or trying to prove them otherwise. Your voice should be heard, but that doesn’t mean you need to enforce your opinions on everyone you come across. In the end I was happy to keep my mouth shut and smile and nod at what they had to say without arguing.
LikeLike
Zimmerman states that states that college and regular school campuses should not be a safe enviornment. His argument makes perfect sense in the fact that life beyond college is not guranteed to be safe. Restricting the envornment in which college students have some freedom is bad for them and is not really classified as safe. Safe means that a person is in the best place for them not to get harmed by something. That is the case in schools but not the basis of school. For example, a great place that is also safe would be the Red Cross. The best way to feel safe is to go to a place where the atmosphere is very comforting and secure. For security purposes a staff that is able to secure the safety of people is a priority.
LikeLike
I agree with Zimmerman. Making college campuses “safe” places does much more harm than good. Having to censor discussions and teaching will only take away from a good education. People want to be kept “safe,” but this only results in them not getting all of the information that they need. If you are sheltered and given only one side of a story, you won’t actually gain knowledge. After all, what is the point of learning if it just forwards your personal opinions? Zimmerman stated that the foremost purpose of education is to “challenge [student’s] feelings and beliefs at every turn.” That is the only way that education works. These safe zones have undermined some of the educational and academic part of college, but that’s not all that it can do. It can also undermine the role of college as a way to prepare young adults for life in the real world. There are no “safe zones” in real life, so people have to learn to deal with contrary opinions. If they make it all the way through college while being sheltered, it is likely that people will shut down when confronted with conflict. Zimmerman was correct when he said that safe zones in college were a bad thing. They should be limited.
LikeLike
Question 1:
I believe that Zimmerman’s argument is very clear and logical. Students should not be sheltered just because they are offended by a symbol because someone else on that campus may look up to the symbol. I believe that students should not have a safe-space on campus because college is about challenging individuals and introducing them to a new environment. I think if campuses choose not to shelter students then it will create more intellectual individuals because when they experience the real world they will be surrounded by many of these symbols. Zimmerman states, “That’s precisely the distinction that gets lost in the fear-mongering culture of safe spaces, which teaches us to regard language itself as a minefield of danger and harm.” I agree with this statement that words and ideas can not actually cause harm. While words may offend someone, they are not the actual thing creating any real violence. In this world humans have the right to express themselves freely and I do not believe this right should be taken away just because a few individuals do not agree with what is being said.
LikeLike
Question 3
While reading this part of the article, I started to question Zimmerman’s proof and reasoning. He stated, “Having borne witness to real violence, they know – better than any of us – the difference between actions and words” (2019). Zimmerman uses this to support his idea that the incarcerated students were born around violence, so they are now able to say what’s on their mind without worrying about who it will offend. I agree that some of those students were more than likely raised around violence and havoc, however, I believe the assumption that all incarcerated students were born to witness violence is a far-fetched statement. I know many fellow classmates or friends who have been in trouble with the law, but most times it is due to drugs or violating restrictions-like driving without a license. I think everyone comes from different backgrounds, and most minors that end up in prison or a youth detention center have had a bad childhood, live in poverty, or have parents that don’t support them. I know many great people that have had to try and sell drugs to keep food on the table for them and their siblings while their parents are working minimum wage jobs without many days off. Additionally, I think that blaming free-opinion or open speech among students on violence does not make sense. I think the fact that these students who were incarcerated could speak their minds is due to the fact that they grew up without much elder influence, and most other people or students that grew up with influential parent figures were raised to respect others and “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all”. I feel this is the biggest influence that most students or people feel today because most of us are trained by our parents to follow the rules and be kind. However, if these juvenile lessons are not taught to certain children, they will grow up saying what is on their mind no matter the consequences.
LikeLike
Question 1:
I believe that Zimmerman’s argument is very valid. Students who venture away from home and enter into college should not be sheltered. As people grow older they should learn to deal with things that they may not be comfortable with. When dealing with many different cultures and ethnicities it is really hard for campuses to please everyone. Things that one might find to be offensive another might believe to be their idol. I believe that colleges should not shelter their students because it will only cause more problems for that student in the future. People who are sheltered from the real world grow up to believe that anything that offends them should be taken down or destroyed. However that is not how it works therefore those people live a very hard life. Zimmerman talks about the statues that were built outside of different campuses; he believes that those statues should not have been removed. He states “Of course those symbols should make us feel bad. But that’s the worst possible reason to rid ourselves of them.” I completely agree with this idea because those who are sheltered tend to cause trouble because they believe that everything should be a certain way, and when it’s not they tend to riot.
LikeLike
Rachel Jackson
4/24/19
Question: Among the many problems with trying to make universities “safe spaces” for everyone is the definition and interpretation of “safe.” What does “safe” mean to you? When do you (or would you) feel safe? What conditions have to exist in order to ensure your sense of safety?
To me, safe means being in an atmosphere where I feel secure in my surroundings and unafraid of anything bad happening. It is very important for me to feel safe in whatever college I attend because with a large amount of independence also comes a lot of responsibility to be aware of your surroundings. You no longer have parents looking over your shoulder making sure you are safe. I am attending Liberty University which is an atmosphere that I feel very safe and non-threatened. The University has its own police force on campus 24/7 and many precautions in order to keep the crime level down. In addition, I would also feel more safe if I am always walking a friend when on campus.
LikeLike
I definitely agree with Zimmerman because his argument was logical and made perfect sense. Making college campuses “safe” places actually do much more harm than good. Students should not be sheltered just because they’re offended by a symbol because someone else on that campus may look up to that symbol. Having to censor lectures and discussion will only take away from a good education. Zimmerman stated that the foremost purpose of education is to “challenge the [student’s] feelings and belief at every turn.” That is the only way that education works. I believe that if campuses choose not to shelter students, then it will create intellectual individuals because they will experience the real world. Zimmerman stated, “That’s precisely the distinction that gets lost in the fear-mongering culture of safe spaces, which teaches us to regard language itself as a minefield of danger and harm.” I definitely agree with his statement that words and ideas can’t actually cause harm. Like the iconic phrase, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”, words might offend someone, they are not the actual cause of any real violence. I believe that people should have the right to say what they want and to express themselves without any limitations. This should not be taken away from us.
LikeLike
Safety first (or not): Jonathan Zimmerman on ideas that offend
Q: Among the many problems with trying to make universities “safe spaces” for everyone is the definition and interpretation of “safe.” What does “safe” mean to you? When do you (or would you) feel safe? What conditions have to exist in order to ensure your sense of safety?
A: The state of being safe to me, means that I will feeling guarded and secure with nothing negative happening. I feel as though I should be safe while attending college because of how much responsibility I will have on me. Without the feeling of being secure I would not have the ability to focus because I would be worried about my surroundings etc. Being that I will be on my own, I should have the ability to be in an atmosphere that feels safe and many college campus’ has police to make sure that we all feel safe everyday.
LikeLike
My definition of a “safe space,” and the definition of the term to most people who advocate for them, it seems, is a direct contrary to what Zimmerman thinks. A “safe space” is, simply put, somewhere where ideas that cultivate and breed hatred and malice are to be observed and not engaged. Zimmerman seems to believe that a safe space is somewhere where the simple concept of, say, racism, is completely taboo and cannot be so much as mentioned. This directly conflicts the commonly held belief that safe spaces exist to observe and challenge, a place where one can safely challenge the deeply laid racism in history for example, without being belittled or berated for challenging the idea. Zimmerman’s concept of a safe space is held a decent number of people. The reasoning for this, in my opinion, is that they’ve witnessed these harmful ideas be cut down and assume that it is out of malice, that students need to “man up” and “learn to live in the real world,” and that interacting with those ideas somehow makes them ready for a theoretical “unsafe space.”
The problem with the “unsafe space preparation” idea is that it’s simply unrealistic. Not the concept of an unsafe space, those exist in droves, but the idea that someone would encounter a racist or homophobic and actually bother to engage them in some sort of debate. To me, a safe space is where those ideas are not shot down but just observed with the preface of “this is a bad way to think.”
LikeLike
Zimmerman explains in his article the potential dangers of statues and symbols presented around college campuses. These symbols would include confederate statues, images portraying violent pasts, and even the American flag itself. I would have to say that I personally feel safe in this country and am grateful to live in “the land of the free.” I find it difficult to imagine getting offended by statues and especially the American flag. Colleges should be teaching and educating their students on the culture and meaning of these symbols instead of shielding from the harsh truth of America’s past.
LikeLike
Question 4: Among the many problems with trying to make universities “safe spaces” for everyone is the definition and interpretation of “safe.” What does “safe” mean to you? When do you (or would you) feel safe? What conditions have to exist in order to ensure your sense of safety? Write an essay addressing these questions. Use Zimmerman as your They Say, and in your essay, consider the effects of words, actions, ideas or concepts, and symbols.
Answer: Safe means being in an atmosphere where I feel secure in my environment. It is very important for me to feel safe in whatever college I attend because with a large amount of freedom also comes a lot of responsibility to be aware of your surroundings. You no longer have parents looking over your shoulder making sure you are safe and okay all the time. I am attending the University of Mary Washington which is an atmosphere that I feel very harmless and non-threatened. The University has its own police force on campus 24/7. The campus is fenced around and you have to have an ID card in order to get into the buildings along campus. I would also feel more safe if I am always walking a friend when on campus.
LikeLike
Zimmerman explained in his article the possible dangers of symbols presented on college campuses. Those symbols include statues, flags, and images of war. I can say I feel safe in this country with the amount of security and military survailence. I do however get offended by some symbols or actions taken against such symbols. I am for the Confederate flag but I get offended if people try to destroy it or try to take it down. Colleges should teach students on culture and the meaning behind such symbols instead of hiding the meaning behind a closed door.
LikeLike
Zimmerman has a good point when he said that college campuses shelter people. Students have to be aware of the real world. We learn in school all those things, but when we are out, we have a huge shock because the real world is totally different. We should be able to have more real experiences and get out of the comfort zone.
LikeLike
I agree with Zimmerman because what he said is very true. Sometimes making a college more safe can cause bad. Sheltering too much can be bad due to in the real life there will not be a safe space. Getting out of comfort zone and making changes is a good thing not bad.
LikeLike
Jonathan Zimmerman argues that college campuses should not be safe spaces, and should instead force students to face views and opinions that go against their own. His purpose for writing this article is to criticize the schools that are making their campuses safer for students and to call students to action and allow their views to be challenged, rather than shying away from any possible discomfort. Zimmerman states that when schools remove symbols that make students feel unsafe, they are going against the very purpose of education, which is face ideas and beliefs that differ from your own. He argues that college safe spaces actually make students feel censored and scared to speak their mind, and that goes against the concept of a safe space.
I agree with Zimmerman’s view that students need to have their views challenged. If they are faced with something that they do not necessarily agree with, they can learn from the other side of the argument and develop their beliefs. Having another opinion on a topic can help further complicate your opinion, which allows you to engage in discussions with other people and have meaningful and insightful educational conversations. However, I believe that colleges should censor their students in some ways because it is not safe to have people vocalizing their radical views that may lead to physical harm for some students.
LikeLike
In his article, Zimmerman brings up the issue of safe spaces on college campuses. He brings up how that every group can say something offends them and its symbol would be erased from college campuses. Because of this, many students hold their tongues and don’t have good discussions that challenges their ideas. The author taught a undergraduate class for prisoners and said that the prisoners didn’t hold back on their thoughts because they understand the difference between action and violence. Zimmerman says that colleges shouldn’t censor what their students hear or see, but instead should challenge their beliefs.
I do agree with the author, there should not be safe spaces in colleges because there are none in the real world. You can’t go through your life destroying things that you don’t agree with. You need to respect other opinions while at the same time hold true to your own. Have a discussion and do not get offended when someone disagrees with you. Listen before you argue.
LikeLike
I disagree with Zimmerman, students should feel safe at college campuses. If there is anything that makes them feel unsafe then it should be removed permanently.It’s what these statues stand for that makes it unsafe. The reasoning behind this, is there are active groups that spew out hate and use these monuments to help advocate white supremacy. The way society is today some would say there is no safe place. But there are many securities that are in place like our laws that suppose to protect people.Yes people have freedom of speech. but there are consequences to any act of violence to any individual.
LikeLike
A number of people have recently suggested that we need in our classrooms and on campuses a safe space. Jonathan Zimmerman argues that words and ideas don’t cause actual harm and that we should be challenging people’s feelings and beliefs. Mr. Zimmerman disagrees when he writes, “But they have no right to be insulated from it, simply because it hurts their feelings.” In other words, just because something may be hard to talk about doesn’t mean we should shy away from it to ensure no one’s feelings get hurt.
I agree that we should not have safe spaces because in my experience, by being able to express my opinions and not have to worry about hurting someone’s feelings, I am able to learn more and see another people’s view about the topic. I wholeheartedly endorse what Mr. Zimmerman says about the safe space doctrine creating huge barriers to dialogue and how it ultimately censors’ people’s thoughts. Yet some readers may challenge the view that they don’t feel safe and can’t learn when they feel that way. Ultimately, what is at stake here is our freedom of speech and no one should be silenced just to make sure someone else doesn’t get their feelings hurt.
LikeLike
Words can hurt people. That is not up for debate, as much as it may seem. Words and actions are inherently linked, as the rise of violent words lead to violent actions, the rise of hateful language leads to hateful actions and vice versa. In his piece for The Chronicle of Higher Education, titled College Campuses Should Not Be Safe Spaces, Jonathan Zimmerman argues that words and actions must be separated. His perspective is that words do no damage on their own, therefore they are not dangerous. He invokes the buzzword of the safe space and speaks directly to the separation between the two seemingly disparate ideas of action and words, pointing out “That’s precisely the distinction that gets lost in the fear-mongering culture of safe spaces, which teaches us to regard language itself as a minefield of danger and harm. And it paves the way for anyone to claim that a given word or idea makes them feel unsafe and must therefore be tabooed or removed.” (Zimmerman). To Zimmerman, the minefield of language has made it hard to engage and defines a slippery slope to totalitarian limiting of language. He is suggesting that any limiting of acceptable language is inherently bad. An opponent to this view might say that some language is inherently violent. For example, fascism and white supremacy thrive when they are not actively silenced by comminutes, and those ideologies led to countless deaths and centuries of fear and pain. According to this view, historically brutal strong men, dictators, and war criminals only rose to prominence through language, their strength only manifesting after their words were heard.
In my view, Zimmerman is arguing for a distinction that does not exist. Words are actions and can be equally vile and violent. To speak is to act, and speech can be violent. In a word that is increasingly defined around controversial ideas and beginning to fall into ideologies that use Zimmerman’s view of free speech to gain power and cause pain, there is nothing more important than challenging this outdated notion.
LikeLike
Words and ideas mean nothing unless acted upon. One could have a million brilliant ideas, none of which will come into fruition unless specific action is taken. Therefore, words and ideas, as they stand before any action is taken, are in themselves harmless. While some words may cause offence to some people, words without action are just that- words. In his article “Safety First (Or Not)”, Jonathan Zimmerman makes reference to the distinction between actions and words when he says, “That’s precisely the distinction that gets lost in the fear-mongering culture of safe spaces, which teaches us to regard language itself as a minefield of danger and harm. And it paves the way for anyone to claim that a given word or idea makes them feel unsafe, and must therefore be tabooed or removed.”
Zimmerman is making a claim that the safe space mentality of today’s society is able to target words themselves as threatening or unsafe, and therefore the people of today’s society are able to cry “safe space, safe space” to put ideas, that have not yet even sparked an action, to rest. He is suggesting that safe space targets language as an enemy to their environment. But let’s be clear about something here, language is a powerful tool- a tool that gives people the ability to express their ideas upon the world. Not all of these ideas are “good” ideas and some may indeed have malicious intent. However, any idea, good, bad, or indifferent, will remain spoken or written words until acted upon with action. Safe spaces fail to open up students’ minds to the view points of every side of the argument, and instead teach students that it is okay to silence those that disagree with you by simply crying “safe space.” This snowflake mentality does not prepare these students for real world interaction. If there is an issue that bothers a person, they simply can not run away to a safe space, and expect the issue to go away. Safe space does not provide students with the means, nor the guts, to stand up and face what bothers them, but instead teaches them it is okay to run away from the problem.
LikeLike
Ok so I decided screw the templates for this assignment. I messed with it for a while and couldn’t format the templates into a way that I wanted to respond to this, so I am just writing a response without the restrictions in place. (Feel free to give me a zero on this assignment). I also refuse to answer the questions on the link you sent. If the goal is to really set an open free thinking “problem posing” environment in the classroom, why is it that the questions are framed in a derogatory way against the article? Saying things like “Knowing what we do about the world (violence occurs in many places, public and private, while numerous people serve jail terms for non-violent offenses), how well does Zimmerman’s reasoning hold up?” or “It would be very surprising, however, to find someone who has never kept silent on any topic, regardless of the circumstances. Although Zimmerman laments such self-censorship, sometimes there may be good reasons for withholding comment.” These statements are examples of the Inquirer imposing ideas and examples into the head of the respondent before they are able to respond to the question with their own free thinking. The purpose of questions like these should be to inspire students to think deeper about what they read, not to inspire them to write in a certain way or to respond with certain ideas. If you want to influence people, instead write an article like the one we are supposed to be responding to. Now for my actual response to this article, I love it. He makes very good points like in response to someone calling for the university to get rid of the statue forever, “But where does that end? It doesn’t. Members of any group on a campus could claim that a given symbol threatens their safety; and under the safety-first doctrine, the symbol would have to go. Students at the University of Texas at Austin — which moved its statue of Jefferson Davis to a history center in 2017 — could demand the statue’s destruction. Ditto for any historical remnants of genocidal regimes in Germany, Cambodia, or Turkey.” The same could be said about George Washington, he was a proud slave owner in his early life and continued owning many throughout his later years. Owning roughly 317 slaves at the time of his death and saying things like “lost labor is never to be regained. Every laborer male or female do as much in the 24 hours as their strength without endangering health or constitution will allow of.” And slaves should “be at their work as soon as it is light, work til it is dark, and be diligent while they are at it.” So should we go and tear down the Washington monument or rename Washington D.C.? Racism is a horrible thing, but like it or not, it is a part of our past. What we should do is acknowledge our past and learn from it, changing our ways today. As for discussions in the university classroom or even just on campus in general, I often feel as if I am having to censor myself for fear of criticism from not only students but teachers as well. As Zimmerman says, “many students and faculty members report that they censor themselves, biting their tongues instead of saying what they actually think.” This paper is an example of me stepping out of my comfort zone and speaking my mind. The question says, as I quoted earlier, sometimes there may be good reasons to withholding a comment. Yes there are sometimes good reasons but Zimmerman isn’t saying you should always respond with whatever comes to mind, he is saying in a discussion environment you shouldn’t be afraid to say what you think and you shouldn’t have to worry about being looked down upon for stating an opinion which is what the modern public education has caused many students to feel with this “mob mentality.” Its easier to agree and go along with what everyone says than to say what you think. That is the reason why his prison example discussion went so well, they are outside that environment of fear and judgement and were able to speak their mind and that’s why the discussion went so deep. Zimmerman says, “An institution of higher education, the lawmakers said, ‘has to be reasonable and sensible to the feelings and beliefs of their students.’ No, it doesn’t. In fact, its foremost purpose is to challenge those feelings and beliefs at every turn.” The schooling system has a responsibility to uphold safety for their students. But as one of these questions inquires, what does safety mean? To me the safety that a schooling system or campus should uphold is that of physical safety and that of safety against being attacked by other peers or professors through things like racism or discrimination. Racism or discrimination from a person or group of people is unacceptable, there should be no tolerance for that. But a monument that is there for the purpose of remembering our past, posed no threat to the students, it is not being used as a way to discriminate or anything of that sort. To me safety means I should feel physically safe and feel that I can say what my opinion is without being discriminated or looked down upon. I interviewed my girlfriend Tiana about this topic after reading the article and she responded, “In relation to this, a safe space for me would be a place where all beliefs can be expressed and discussed, not forced and not cut down, but rather openly discussed.” In modern education we are cutting things that “hurt our feelings” out of campuses, things like religion and rough history. In a true free society these things should be ok to be discussed openly, but not forced. Cutting these things out and even making them illegal is just as bad as the other way around and forcing students to believe in them or follow them. Long story short, it is not the place of the campus or even government to cut things out of our society because certain people may be offended by it. Instead we should’ve used this statue to spark open discussion about our rocky past as a country and ways, in our modern society, we can improve.
LikeLike
Question 4
In a recent discussion of school safety and what that means, a controversial issue has been whether colleges should broaden the topics which are discussed in schools. On the one hand, some argue that this is not going to help the students but instead impede them. From this perspective, we see how we need to challenge beliefs and teach students to understand them, not ignore them. On the other hand, others argue that it would be better to censor what is being said than to take the chance of offending someone. In the words of Jonathan Zimmerman, one of this view’s main proponents, “In fact, its foremost purpose is to challenge those feelings and beliefs at every turn. That won’t be easy, and it definitely won’t be comfortable. Advocates of safe spaces often invoke free expression, promising to give people the protection that they need to speak their minds.” According to this view, to truly be safe, we have to feel that we can express our thoughts without judgment. In sum, then, the issue is whether the schools or students are willing to do this.
My own view is that everyone should be able to comfortably share their thoughts regardless of where they are getting their education. Though I concede that some of the things they may want to share will make people uncomfortable, I still maintain that this should not be the main reason we pressure them to say nothing. For example, what if the person needs to share something to better their mental health by knowing that others feel the same struggles. Although some might object that these types of topics should be relegated to specific groups, I would reply that by being overly inclusive of all kinds of groups, it will eventually create a normal school life. The issue is important because schools form and create adults that may and will have the power to change the world, so it is essential that they are understanding and open to every possibility.
LikeLike
In the article, “College Campuses Should Not Be Safe Spaces” by Jonathan Zimmerman there is controversial issue whether the American schools should be a safe space for students or not. The word “safe” for some it is not be uncomfortable or out of harm in every situation in schools. Also the word “everyone” this includes every single person no matter race, color, religion or other beliefs. Zimmerman believes that there should not be any safe space in college campus. He says, “Advocates of safe spaces often invoke free expression, promising to give people the protection that they need to speak their minds… safe-space doctrine actually creates huge barriers to dialogue.” This shows that having safe space in the American schools creates problems that make people feel that they are danger and deals it with violence and protest to feel safe. In sum some argue that safe spaces are necessary to make students feel safe in the school environment and help them learn. While others argue that it would create chaos if everyone can say what they believe. In my opinion I believe that we are never safe in schools but as individuals we must make our safe zone. By this I mean that we should avoid danger and if something offend us we should solve the problem but not using violence. This is important because if we protest out loud saying what you believe others will not agree with you to the the point where there is violence and creates hate speech. We must respect one another and should get along.
LikeLike
In recent discussions of campus safety, a controversial issue has been whether safety should or should not be the main priority on campus. On the one hand, some argue that “safety first” restricts or censors’ thoughts so student’s hold back vital information to not risk offending anyone. From this perspective, safety is holding back students from truly engaging in discussions and from reaching their full potential. On the other hand, however, others argue that safety is the main concern and students should feel they are in a safe space. In the words of Jonathan Zimmerman, one of the view’s main proponents, “Once you enshrine that kind of safety as the sine qua non of education, you can censor or eliminate anything that might provoke uneasiness, anxiety, or discomfort.” According to this view, safety is restricting but also eliminates any awkwardness. In sum, then, the issue is whether safety should be the main concern or not. My own view is that while safety must be considered, certain restrictions should not be placed so the student can learn to the best of their abilities. Though I concede that safety should be disregarded, I still maintain that certain restrictions can cause a student to hold back information, so they don’t risk standing out. For example, if a class is discussing slavery a student may feel inclined to not answer because he/she feels it is not their place to answer at risk of offending anyone. Although some might object that feeling comfortable must be a virtue of every classroom, I would reply that comfortability can lead to boxes the student should not be placed in. The issue is important because placing unnecessary restrictions can truly limit a student’s potential.
LikeLike
I don’t believe that Zimmerman’s incarcerated students “don’t hold back” because they’ve “borne witness to real violence”. I think it’s a question of the culture they’re currently enmeshed in. In “polite society,” it is considered inappropriate to offend one’s classmates and therefore, we censor ourselves. In prison, however, there is no such norm. One may find oneself offended several times over the course of a single day. I would argue that this is a stressful environment, and not one conducive to education. However, I acknowledge the usefulness of uncensored discussion and propose that a “safe space” is exactly what students need in order to feel that they may express themselves freely. Though statues that incite violence and call for oppression may (and should) be removed from campus, students can be made to feel that it is safe to voice their ideas, regardless of societal conventions. A teacher need only create that culture within the classroom.
LikeLike
In recent discussion of campus safety of american higher education, a controversial issue has been whether members of any group on a campus could claim a given symbol threatens campus students safety.On the one hand, however, others argue that walls put up against beliefs and remarks can injure and harm adult education.From this perspective,no one learns when feeling unsafe.on the other hand, however,others argue that challenging feelings and beliefs open the urge to what to learn with out feeling unsafe.I the words of Jonathan Zimmerman,one of the view’s main proponents “words and and ideas, by themselves, cannot cause harm.”According to this view,culture of fear and resentment makes classrooms and campuses unsafe for real learning.In sum,then, the issue is whether coalation for diversity and equity is declared a symbol of institutionalized violence or is diverse, equitable safe for all making learning impossible when the learning enviroment is unsafe.My own view is that i agree that a person can learn more and better when they only have to focus on what is being taught.Though i concede that a “stable,productive educational enviroment”project “safety”, I still maintain world is a mindfield full of all sorts and levels of harm and danger.For example college campus stuudent’s often hold back when given a topic of discussion makes them uncomfortable, yet prison student’s will not hold back.Although some might object that feeling unsafe should not effect an adult education, i would reply that, every human being on this earth has the right to feel and be safe no matter what.T he issue is important because the world is full of danger and harm no matter who you are or where you are and any thing can happen good or bad.
LikeLike
Question 1
Zimmerman points to a clear distinction between actions and words, and he seems to be arguing that words and ideas, by themselves, cannot cause actual harm. Is that, in fact, what he is suggesting? Why do you think that? Point to specific passages to support your reasoning. Do you think that words and ideas are harmless? Why or why not?
I also agree with Zimmerman that words are harmless. It may hurt people’s feelings but that is not physically hurting them. You may say that hate speech can hurt people, but the people that are actually hurting others are using it as an excuse to hurt others. As Zimmerman said ” Of course those symbols should make us feel bad. But that’s the worst possible reason to rid ourselves of them.” People also use symbols as an excuse to do harm to others. I am not saying it is right to use hate speech but to say it causes people harm is wrong. I do agree if you do not wish to be around people then you shouldn’t have to but to make a space just so no one can have the freedom of speech is wrong. People should not be biting their tongs or be afraid to say something, which is why we have the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech).
LikeLike
Q: Among the many problems with trying to make universities “safe spaces” for everyone is the definition and interpretation of “safe.” What does “safe” mean to you? When do you (or would you) feel safe? What conditions have to exist in order to ensure your sense of safety?
A: For me, being safe means being free of harm or danger. I feel safe when I’m in an environment that is right for me, that I fit in. But if I’m not, I try to create my safe space within my own energy where there’s no danger, conflicts, etc.
LikeLike
In recent discussion of the safety of students in schools, a controversial issue has been whether the need for safety limits students from expressing their opinions and thoughts regarding matters that they deem or feel as uncomfortable. On the one hand, some argue that making opinions known restricts or decreases the level of safety of the students making them vulnerable for both verbal and physical attacks. From this perspective, then it seems that students fear that if they make their thoughts known they will be antagonized or perhaps bullied. On the other hand, however, others argue that unhampering thoughts on uncomfortable matters allows those of higher authorities to attend to the needs of their students making it easier to resolve the issue or topics that make them uncomfortable. In the words of Jonathan Zimmerman, one of this view’s main proponents, “…anathema to education, which requires us to confront ideas and practices that are different from our own. We can’t do that if we create our own culture of fear and resentment, which makes our classrooms and our campuses unsafe for real learning.”. According to this view, not being able to express ones thoughts and ideas capitalizes on making places of education unsafe. In sum, then, the issue is whether safety diminishes students thoughts on issues and topics due to the fear of being verbally criticized or if making known those thoughts on issues contributes to keeping students safe.
My own view is that students should express their thoughts on matters that they deem as uncomfortable and though I concede that it might lead to a situation where they might be criticized, I still maintain that doing so is better than being mute since it will then become hard for teachers to identify places that need improvements in regards to safety. For example, if one does not make known what he or she dislikes and why he or she dislikes what it is, it becomes harder to know that the person dislikes such a thing. Although some might object that such an example is irrelevant to the conversation and that making ones view known doesn’t necessarily impart much change, I would reply that one persons voice can prompt others who posses the same trouble to reveal themselves. The issue is important because without students making their ideas and thoughts known on uncomfortable topics and issues safety will not be achieved in places of education.
LikeLike
I believe that Johnathan Zimmerman’s argument is logical. Those who chose to go to college and leave home should not be sheltered like they still live with their parents. As students grow they need to be able to realize not everything is going to go their way. People are different. There’s a good chance there will be someone at your college who believes the opposite of everything you believe. I don’t think that colleges should shelter students because they will soon be adults in the real world and in a real work environment, it doesn’t work like that. People who grow up sheltered begin to have the “my way or the highway” attitude and it is not mature; and will not get you anywhere in life. When Zimmerman talks about the statues; he says believes that those statues should not have been removed. He acknowledges that it was a bad thing, but still states what he believes. I agree with this because just cause you have a certain belief doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with you.
LikeLike
I have definitely been in a situation where I chose to “smile and nod” rather than say what I believe because of the environment I was in. I had a class that was mostly people who aren’t very athletic talking about how they think if they trained everyday of the year, all day they could be just as good as say, Michael Jordan. They all turned to me knowing I am involved in a sport and when I started to disagree with them they all got upset. They started asking me more questions trying to start a fight and I just agreed with them. If this were to happen to another person my advice would be to defend what you believe in, even if that means the people around you won’t like you. You will wind up regretting it if you don’t.
LikeLike
To me, a safe place is where i feel most at home, weather that be an actual place or someone I like to be around. I feel most safe when I am with someone who I know or if i’m in very a familiar area. Conditions that would have to exist to make me feel safe would be lots of lights on dark streets and lots of security when on campus.
LikeLike
Zimmerman’s assumption that all incarcerated students were born to witness violence is reaching. I am around many who have been in trouble with the law when i’m at school, but nine times out of ten it is due to things like running away from home or drugs. No one knows how every child is brought up. Making this assumption makes Zimmerman sound like he hasn’t actually talked to more than two kids who have been incarcerated. It is putting all those kids under one umbrella.
LikeLike
I completely agree with Zimmerman in the sense that we shouldn’t be so quick to censor everything around us. Before reading this article I never really paid much attention to what was going on around the debate on removing white supremacist statues. I always thought it was good that these types of statues were disappearing but what really made me question my stance was when Zimmerman said ” I supported its removal to a campus history center, as Folt proposed last year, where its full story could be told. But that wasn’t enough for many critics of the center, who claimed that the simple presence of the statue — no matter the context — would make them feel unsafe.” Now I think this would be the perfect thing to do with these statues. It would help explain to future generations what these men did that was so horrible. What I don’t understand is why this move would make people still feel unsafe. To me this provides a teachable moment, and it isn’t like it’s being celebrated. He also says “many students and faculty members report that they censor themselves, biting their tongues instead of saying what they actually think.” I feel like this is a very true reality for most students because no one wants to say anything to offend anyone. Although it comes from a good heart it can hinder the way we hold discussions in classrooms and then they can not be used to their greatest potential.
LikeLike
I was somewhat appalled upon reading the title of this article. It seems heinous to suggest that colleges and universities deliberately expose their students to situations in which they may feel unsafe. However, the more I read, the more I found I agreed at least a little with author Jonathan Zimmerman’s points. Zimmerman gives an example regarding a statue of “Silent Sam,” a confederate general, on a University of North Carolina campus. Students essentially claimed that “the monument — not the controversy over it — endanger[ed] their safety.” This sparked within me an internal conflict: I believe that students should feel safe and comfortable on their campus at all times, but at the same time, the statue itself is a big rock carving — it’s not actually going to cause anyone harm or injury unless it comes to life. Zimmerman goes on to describe an instance at Occidental College in which a group of students claimed that the imagery of an American flag on a 9/11 memorial made them feel unsafe. “For us, the flag is a symbol of institutionalized violence,” stated the students. This is where the meaning of education is called into question: does education not involve being drawn out of one’s comfort zone in the name of learning more about the world and the state it is in? I believe that one can learn best in an environment where they feel comfortable and not in fear of being harmed, and I believe it is of the utmost importance to listen to the demands of young people to reform campuses and even full societies to make them more welcoming. Despite that, though, would leaving the American flag imagery there actually lead to harm or injury? Would it be more conducive to the students’ education? Would it have any effect at all? Answering questions like these may involve making some students uncomfortable, but it is worth it if it means making college campuses, and eventually all of society, more welcoming and safe for all.
LikeLike