Safe spaces; the well intentioned concept of a location where beliefs may be spoken without negative consequences or repercussions. However, if the age old adage of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” rings true, then safe spaces are detrimental to society. Throughout recent history, It has been exemplified how safe spaces are a detriment and this specifically evidenced through three key elements; safe spaces set unrealistic standards for the real world, safe spaces lead to the propagation and furthering of fascism, and safe spaces may lead to a bio political regime.
Now despite all of the proposed benefits of safe spaces, one fact still remains blatantly clear to this day; safe space set unrealistic standards for how adult life is structured. They create a sort of padded room in which sensitive college students may hide and never come out to face the harsh realities of human existence. This phenomenon and its harms are described most eloquently in the following, “Universities shouldn’t be an ivory tower where students are kept innocent. It is true that we won’t marginalize people if there is a safe space, but we will be marginalized after graduation if we are ‘trained’ to feel uncomfortable when exposed to sensitive matters”(Zhang) The message is clear; with safe spaces comes a blatant disadvantage towards realism when encountering conflict and that is an issue. The real world isn’t a safe space and any other mentality is inherently toxic and detrimental. Despite the previous contention, proponents of safe spaces fall to a more instinctual logic based on that of feelings, this is demonstrated in the following,” Subjective thinking isn’t always the best way to understand other student’s experiences, fears and needs. On and objective level, safe spaces for students who feel they need them are something institutions of higher education may need to adopt.”(Zhang) Now, the sentiment of wanting to protect the students is truly noble, but the fact still stands of safe spaces causing societal detriment. In the words of Benjamin Shapiro,” facts don’t care about your feelings.”
Moving on, arguably more pertinent than the concept of safe spaces setting unrealistic expectations is the idea that safe spaces intrinsically promote fascism. This concept may be hard to digest, but is described quite succinctly by Daniel Greenfield of therevolt.org, “Safe spaces are where anyone who isn’t a safe space fascist is called a fascist.” What greenfield is describing here is the ideological bubble that exists within a safe space. The mentality behind a safe space is quite simple, “all those who dissent from our reasoning are violating our safe space.” This cyclical logic produces many dangerous results, such as when noted right wing advocate and media figure Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a speech at UC Berkeley and the end result was the ironically named “Antifa” (anti-fascist) movement setting fire to the campus in order to stop the man from speaking. The irony derives from their supposed anti-fascist tendencies when in fact, they are propagating fascism on their own. One can look to the esteemed Webster-Meriam’s dictionary for proof, “Fascism- A way of organizing a society in which a government is ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and people are not allowed to disagree with the government.” When this vocal dissenter in the form of Milo Yiannopoulos showed up to give a speech, Antifa went out of their way to silence the man and protect their safe space, thereby promoting fascism. This clear violation of an individuals first amendment right perfectly exemplifies the hypocrisy of the safe space movement, and in that hypocrisy lies the societal detriment.
Last but not least, it comes down to the assertion that Safe spaces lead to the establishment of a bio political regime. As previously stated, safe spaces promote violence and conflict such as shown with the Berkeley incident, which transitions to the first of two points: Safe spaces lead to perpetual conflict. As stated by the esteemed Harvey Langholtz, professor decision theory at the college of William and Mary of Williamsburg Virginia,“The durability and violence of many conflicts creates a system of beliefs and practices that weave violence into the fabric of daily life, making it difficult for leaders to change” ( Langholtz ). When this logic is applied to the safe space situation, this auxiliary effect becomes more apparent. In short, the conflict that arises with safe spaces becomes apparent. In short, the presence of safe spaces and their violent nature leads to people believing that this hostile environment is natural and requires
no action. Langholtz proceeds to exemplify his statements with the following; “Approximately 40 percent of contemporary armed conflicts have been going on for over a decade. The protracted nature of armed conflict, which owes to the cyclical nature of the fighting, means that societal violence becomes part of the social horizon, and entire generation grow in situations which violence is the norm,” ( Langholtz ). This claim transitions into the idea that this sense of cyclical conflict leads to establishment of a bio political regime due to the induction of more authoritarian practices in response to stabilize society, but these policies are ineffective to curb the
The precise foundation of a counter strategic response to the impositions of liberal techniques of discipline, control and regulation that has empowered a tradition of thought which stretches back as far as Clausewitz and Nietzsche…In turn, this is also the form of argument we see empowering the renewal of radical democratic traditions of ‘politics as war’ in response to the current onslaught of liberal terror defined by the global extension of bio political techniques of control, shaping the responses of liberal societies to their new insecurities (Reed).
As stated prior, the natural response to the conflict is to impose more authoritarian practices via the government. However, these policies are ineffective to curb the With this chain of evidence, one has to see that if safe spaces are allowed to stay within the status quo, it could lead to the establishment of a biopolitcal regime where a truly free society was previously allowed to stand.
To summarize, the only rational conclusion in light of all of the previously asserted information is to see that safe spaces are wholly a detriment to both society and human existence. This evidenced through the fact that safe spaces set unrealistic standards, cause fascism, and the establishment of bio politics. Yes, that’s right, safe spaces could effectively lead to the on earth version of Brave New World .