By Celia Rattner, Artwork by Ethan Loderstedt
In August 2020, the University of Chicago sent an email to all incoming first-years that condemned the use of trigger warnings and safe spaces on its campus.

“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces'” Dean of Students Jay Ellison wrote in the letter, as reported by the university’s newspaper “The Chicago Maroon.”

College campuses nationwide are experiencing a wave of pushback from free speech proponents through the idea of safe spaces. Some institutions, such as the University of California Berkeley and the Ohio State University have turned against students during protests in recent years, arguing that their demonstration tactics made university employees feel unsafe. On the other hand, safe spaces offer vital comfort and camaraderie for those from minority groups and have gained much traction in academic spheres.

But what is a safe space? And how did it come be?

Their origin has been debated. The idea of a safe space can be traced back to Kurt Lewin, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, who helped develop the field of social psychology and man- agement theory. While working with supervisors and psychologists at the family-owned textile company, Harwood Manufacturing Company, Lewin created a “safe space” for the company’s female employees, where they could air concerns without fear of backlash.

From here, the term proliferated. According to Malcolm Harris, who cites scholar and activ- ist Moira Kenney’s book Mapping Gay L.A., the term safe space grew in gay and lesbian bars during the mid-1960s, when consensual homosexual sex was still criminalized in many states and the simple act of two gay people dancing together could be cause for criminal punishment.

The “safe space” was also adopted by feminist movements in the 1970s for women to congre- gate and freely share accounts of sexism.

As Vox’s Emily Crockett explains, safe spaces don’t necessarily entail literal safety, but are often a place for relaxation. Yet, she adds, our physical being can be impacted by our emo- tional wellness: “our mental well-being shapes and is shaped by our neural pathways, our digestive tracts, our muscular tensions, our hormones – especially cortisol, the stress hor- mone, which is associated with poor health outcomes at consistently high levels.”
For people hailing from groups that have experienced perpetual violence and trauma, this increased state of stress and emotional dis- tress can promote especially poor health, as the fight-or-flight response is in constant use. If safe spaces can help alleviate the burden placed on such people, then why are they so controver- sial, especially on college campuses, which are havens of stress in the first place?

Some political commentators find safe spaces problematic in that they coddle youth: they promote the “political correctness” that irks academics and thinkers from both sides of the political aisle.

Frankly, I’m torn. I recognize that safe spaces can elicit a sigh of relief from minority groups who feel that their voice is often silenced by those from more privileged backgrounds. They undeniably provide a sense of belonging to those who may feel underrepresented, and with the rise of suicides on college campuses (statistic), they often provide the support that some desperately need.

Conversely, I have always been wary of any rules or measures that attempt to halt speech in its tracks. As harmful as some thoughts and opinions may be, where do we draw the line? Many theories from the past that seemed out- landish are now accepted as fact, and vice versa.

In an attempt to make those who have felt historically ostracized more comfortable, I fear that we are, at times, encouraging a sort of segregation that only leads to more polarization and miscommunication (take political tribalism as a prime example).

On college campuses specifically, where do we draw the line between debate and offensive speech?? How do we protect students who may feel underrepresented while simultaneously upholding core democratic values of free expression?

In an opinion piece for The New York Times, President of Wesleyan University Michael S. Roth suggests spaces that are “safe enough.” Building on psychologist D.W. Winnicott’s model of a “good enough” parent-a guardian who enables their child to grow through failure, within the safety of the family unit-Roth proposes campus cultures that foster a baseline of inclusion and respect that enables its students to thrive (the baseline being a feeling of being “safe enough”).

Like Roth says, I believe we should promote intellectual curiosity and inquiry-good-hearted debate that makes students think without fear of harassment from others. While we should be wary of the polarization that is possible from a lack of free speech, the value of a space where marginalized students find belonging cannot be understated.