A disturbing trend has beset our nation’s top colleges and universities.
It's a trend that runs contrary to the very ideals that define higher education and has permeated our most prestigious institutions.
Disinvitation, as it is known by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, is an increasingly popular form of collective action in which students petition their schools in order to prohibit an invited guest speaker from, well, speaking. Instances of these disinvitations have nearly tripled since 2000.
These controversial guests, among whom include former Secretary of State and world class pianist Condoleezza Rice, are often prevented from speaking in an attempt to maintain what are known as “safe spaces” in schools. While a safe learning environment is absolutely essential for certain individuals, its preservation should never be used as shelter from dissenting opinions. Using the need for a “safe space” to disinvite controversial speakers not only impedes students’ pursuit of knowledge, but undermines the necessity for safe spaces for those that actually need it.
Although the unwillingness of many of our nations students to not necessarily accept, but merely listen to opinions that differ from their own is tragic enough, it is similarly disconcerting that the reason for these disinvitations is maintaining a safe learning environment.
Veterans and victims of sexual assault, among others, are susceptible to triggers, which can be plentiful in certain classes. For this reason, cultivating a safe space in the classroom is vital to these individuals’ health. However, when the necessity for a safe space is used as an excuse to prevent controversial speakers from discussing their opinion, there is a problem.
A professor of anthropology of law and conflict here at USC often presents information that can trigger those who suffer from PTSD. Therefore, before discussing particular topics, he gives the class a trigger warning.
Essentially, he lets everyone know in the class that what they are about to hear or see could be emotionally distressful to specific individuals. He then gives them the option to leave the classroom if they need to. This is an excellent example of creating a safe learning environment.
If a veteran suffering from PTSD in that class were without warning shown a video of the invasion of Normandy, the resulting emotional damage could be significant. This, however, is vastly different from a pro-Palestinian student simply not wanting a pro-Israeli advocate speaking on his or her campus, as was the case at UC Irvine in 2010. A safe learning environment is important at all schools, but its necessity should never be used as umbrage from inflammatory or contradictory opinions.
The point of college is to expand students’ understanding of the world, and this often involves challenging previously established beliefs. If students were to graduate from college believing everything they thought upon enrolling, higher education would be a very poor investment indeed. As Descartes famously said, “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.”
This quote applies most directly to students, who, for all intents and purposes, are in school to seek truth. It is essential to listen and thoughtfully engage with those who have contradictory opinions in order to grow intellectually, but a line must be drawn between the provocative and controversial and the emotionally distressing.