Response to “Reality Bites Back, Stop Safe Spaces”

The irony. Writing about stopping safe spaces, but writing anonymously is a form of safe space.

I actually think there are two different issues here.

1. Writing this article anonymously

I personally believe that Buff and Blue overuses anonymity. I support anonymous writers in certain situations, especially members of minorities and victims who have to protect themselves. I recall a sexual assault survivor who wrote a piece for the Buff and Blue called, “Men, This is For You.” I completely support her choice to remain anonymous because as a female and as a sexual assault victim and survivor, she was in potential danger and had to take measures to protect herself.

However, Buff and Blue has been too quick to use anonymous pieces lately, and that only leads the newspaper to lose credibility and trust of the readers. Anonymity should be used as a last resort, but it seems to be becoming normal. Frequent anonymous writers also reduce potential dialogues related to Buff and Blue stories. I would love to have a chat with the anonymous writer about safe spaces on campus, but unfortunately that cannot happen. When an article is written anonymously, there is no way to get a transparent follow-up dialogue or discussion with the writer.

It took a lot of courage for individuals in the LGBTQA community to come out of the closet, speak up, and fight for their safe spaces. Someone had to be the first LGBTQA person to do so. If the writer truly feels like safe spaces should not exist on campus, they should not hide behind anonymity. Instead, they should be brave enough to identify themselves. The writer would not be taking any potentially life-threatening risks like the LGBTQA people did when they outed themselves from the very beginning. The writer revealing their identity would be NOTHING compared to what the LGBTQA people had to experience and continue to experience. Not even close.

2. Safe spaces on campus

The bottom line is that everyone should be able to feel safe on campus, including those who do not support the concept of safe spaces. No one deserves to be treated awfully.

The writer clearly does not have a good grasp of what safe spaces are and consist of. This is the main reason why this article is flawed. They describe safe spaces as a place where “All dissent is quashed and sameness is advocated,” and goes on to say their purpose is to “Infantilize our students, to brainwash them into thinking that there is always one way to think about anything.” If the writer actually researched about safe spaces, they would find that they are not all about the people who think the same, and that they actually do serve an important purpose.

The general feeling from this article is also very condescending. The writer does not seem sincere or interested in having an actual dialogue with its’ intended audience. It was unnecessary to stigmatize counseling by implying it should be the only safe space for some people.

Post to Twitter

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply