Safe spaces refer to physical or virtual environments where individuals from marginalized or vulnerable groups may be present and at liberty to express themselves and engage in discussions without fear of judgment or being offended. Of course, individuals should be free to express themselves and engage in discussions. Where the concept of the safe space breaks down is in the expectation that those present should be able to express ideas and opinions without being judged or offended. For one thing, who may be judged or offended in a safe space depends on group membership. A safe space is not a space where participants enjoy equality. For another, what’s wrong with judging or offending others in the first place?
Safe spaces are ostensibly designed to foster open dialogue and a sense of belonging for individuals who are represented as having faced systemic discrimination, oppression, or trauma. When not applied to spaces that exclude members of select racial or ethnic groups, such as when whites are not allowed into a space blacks have secured for members of their own group (affinity groups), safe spaces are said to welcome and support all identities. Such safe spaces may be signaled through stickers, such as the one you see below, diversity posters and flags (Black Lives Matter, Pride), brochures and pamphlets affirming select identities, and so forth. Such spaces, we are told, reflect an effort to create environments where individuals can engage in productive and respectful dialogue, enabling personal growth and education through the free exchange of ideas.
The concept of safe spaces emerged within social justice activist circles as a response to the need for inclusive and respectful environments in a world marked by exclusion and systemic oppression. The worldview operating behind the safe space concept presumes an interlocking array of power hierarchies in which those presumed disadvantaged by the oppressive array enjoy an epistemic and moral privilege that allows them to criticize their presumed oppressors while being “safe” from the challenges of those who seek to perpetuate their oppression. (See The False Doctrine of “Weapons of the Weak”; Speech Acts as “Systemically Harmful”: More on the “Weapons of the Weak”.) The ostensive aim of safe spaces, found in various contexts, including educational institutions, online chatrooms, support groups, and workplaces, is to create an atmosphere where people can be their authentic selves, discuss sensitive topics, and learn from one another without the fear of facing prejudice or harm.
Safe spaces are not to be confused with ideal speech situations, which I have written about quite a bit on Freedom and Reason (see Civic Spaces and the Illiberal Desire to Subvert Them; Death of the Traditional Intellectual: The Progressive Corruption of US Colleges and Universities; The Irrational Cognitive Style of Woke Progressivism). In an ideal speech situation, a discussion about race would allow opinions that might disturb or offend regardless of the racial or ethnic identity of the individual expressing those opinions. In contrast to the ideal speech situation, in a safe space, opinions that disturb and offend, depending on who they disturb or offend, are disallowed.
So what does it really mean to be “safe” in the context of a safe space? This is where we see the Orwellian character of the woke concept of the safe space (the same with trigger warnings, etc.; see Manipulating Reality by Manipulating Words). It doesn’t mean being physical safe, safe from violence, or safe from harassment and intimidation, what is what is normally meant by the term safe: to be protected from or not exposed to danger or risk; a situation where one is unlikely to be harmed or lost. When one asks you if you or some thing is safe, this is what he means. My wife’s care breaks down on the Southside of Chicago. She phones me to let them know her situation. It is probable that I will ask if she is safe or if there is somewhere she can go to be safe. I may ask her to call the police in addition to our insurance company. One should be free from danger, harassment, harm, and intimidation in all the spaces through which he moves, or he should know or at least consider the risks involved in spaces he enters. Sometimes one finds oneself in an unsafe situation. One of the safest places to be in the world is in a room at a corporation or university where opinions are expressed in a free and open manner.
So safety is not what the social justice activists have in mind. What they have in mind is censorship and thought control. The social justice activist or the administrator is talking about spaces where members of certain groups don’t have hear opinions they don’t like or sentiments that hurt their feelings. These individuals and their handlers are concerned not for their physical safety but for the integrity of their subjectivity of self-perceived victimhood, a state of mind they very much desire, since it privileges them in a myriad of ways, such as not hearing disagreeable opinions—which makes them ever more dependent on their handlers, those who actually benefit from the structure of diversity, inclusivity, and equity programming.
If you are white, then you know that you’re continually subject to anti-white prejudice that blames you for things you could not possibly have done or would never do—and you make the room unsafe when you resist accepting blame. You are a carrier of implicit race bias, a colonizer, a segregationist, a slave master, the reason BIPOC have it so bad. You are the living personification of systemic racism. It is inherent in you by virtue of your identity. You make the room unsafe when you correct a falsehood, for example exploding the myth that racial violence typically takes the form gangs of whites visiting violence upon black men by sharing statistics showing that racial violence in America is very much the inverse, with black gangs perpetrating violence against whites in most instances of interracial violence. Your opinion, factual and important as it is, disturbs and offends those in the room or, worse, might sway somebody in that room to reconsider his opinion, thus making the space unsafe. (See Offense-Taking: A Method of Social Control.)
Richard Bilkszto, aged 60, formerly served as an interim principal within the Toronto District School Board. His reputation was damaged after he was unjustly labeled a supporter of white supremacy. This labeling occurred when he objected to a claim made by a black instructor during an anti-racism training session in 2021. The instructor claimed that Canada was more racist than the United States. Bilkszto disagreed. He hadn’t considered that in this space he was not allowed to utter opinions that offend a black person by publicly contradicting her. He was committing the act of undermining a black person’s (unearned) authority. She received his criticism as contempt. Bilkszto did not know this was a safe space for her opinions but not his. For this, his colleagues bullied him. Lisa Bildy, Bilkszto’s legal representative, issued a statement asserting that despite a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board investigation (WSIB) concluding that Bilkszto had indeed been a target of workplace bullying, the ramifications of this mistreatment ultimately led the man to tragically take his own life (a month ago today). The relentless stress and consequences stemming from these incidents haunted Richard, she reported.
I experienced the repercussions of not considering the classroom as a safe space. As readers of Freedom and Reason are aware, I have consistently expressed my critical viewpoints on Black Lives Matter (BLM) in my essays. I have highlighted that many of the central assertions made by BLM and other advocates of social justice, which attribute racial disparities in fatal encounters with the police and mass incarceration to implicit race bias and systemic racism, are in fact contradicted by scientific research. In my capacity as an expert in criminology, I discuss these contentious topics in my classes. Given the expectations students (and faculty) have that the classroom should be a safe space, I expected sooner or later that my students would challenge my critiques of BLM. I had hoped that these challenges would manifest in the form of healthy debates within the classroom. However, as anticipated, the students chose a different path and reported me to the administrators.
As I reported in The State of Cognitive Liberty at Today’s Universities, the administrator with whom I conversed was affable and assured me that my engagement in political activities as a private citizen within an open and free society was my prerogative, a sentiment I genuinely appreciated albeit seeing no reason why my First Amendment rights required affirming. It seemed a rather unnecessary gesture at a university. At any rate, he conveyed the students’ concerns that my speech seemed to diverge from the mission of the program in which I teach. He then noted that discordant expressions could potentially affect retention rates among BLM supporters. Why would the facts affect retention rates? Because my classroom would no longer be seen as a safe space.
During our discussion, the administrator inquired as to whether I engage in the role of Devil’s advocate during my classes. He elucidated that he adopts this approach in his literature classes, purposely arguing positions he may not endorse to stimulate discussions and debates, thereby challenging or scrutinizing the validity of specific arguments or concepts through alternate perspectives, irrespective of personal convictions. I clarified that I do not use this particular strategy. Instead, I rely on dismantling unfounded beliefs with factual evidence and scientific method. I emphasized that while I do present stronger versions of opposing arguments by steel-manning them (forming strongly falsifiable arguments), I do not consider this equivalent to playing Devil’s advocate, as I find the latter akin to a religious ritual (that is its origins). To me, it lacks the intellectual rigor to which I am accustomed.
There is more to be said about this in the context of the present essays. Devil’s advocate is manipulative way of reinforcing a standpoint one wishes to impart by holding up against it a straw man then easily demolished through sophistry. Antiracist training sessions are clinics in sophistry. Bad analogies abound. Ad hominem are piled on to amens from the trainees. Red herrings tossed about. Intentional misrepresentation of fact and study. Sophistry is what the woman in charge of the struggle session that changed Richard Bilkszto’s world was doing. When the man resisted “the truth” he was reported and bullied by his colleagues. That his right to a space safe from harassment and intimidation was affirmed by the authoritative body in his domain was tragically not enough to undo the psychological effects of bullying.
In the worldview of race hustlers like Robin DiAngelo, Bilkszto suffered from “white fragility.” Addressing white readers now, if you take issue with the claims those around you—including other whites—make about whites, you suffer from a condition marked by defensive reactions and emotional discomfort experienced when confronted with discussions about race privilege and structural inequality. You are an instantiation of the tendency of white people to become avoidant, defensive, and emotionally distressed when their racial biases and complicity in systemic racism are pointed out or discussed. Your fragility manifests as a range of reactions—anger, defensiveness, denial, disengagement, minimizing the impact of racism.
You have lived a life shielded from conversations about race. Moreover, you do not experience racial discrimination yourself. You lack the tools to engage in constructive dialogue about racism. And so you respond defensively when your privilege is challenged. You should instead express humility and show willingness to engage in critical self-examination. You need to be more self-aware. That’s what will make you a good ally. And if you don’t seek allyship, then you’re a racist for that, too. In fact, all your actions prove you’re a racist. If you speak frankly about race and crime, then you are a racist. If you say you are not racist, then you’re a racist in denial. If you resist the work of racial reconciliation, then you are a recalcitrant racist. If you agree that whites are racist, then you will have confessed to being one. You can’t win. Your attendance is required.
Safe spaces are echo chambers where individuals are exposed to viewpoints that align with their own or with what should be their own (and everybody knows that that is), inhibiting critical thinking and reinforcing existing beliefs. This results in confirmation bias, where people accept only information that supports their preconceptions, instead of engaging with diverse perspectives that might challenge or expand their understanding. To this, the controllers add condemnation of information that contradicts preconceptions in order to marginalize those who would challenge the narrative. The fear of offending or triggering others in safe spaces lead to self-censorship, where individuals refrain from expressing their genuine thoughts and ideas to avoid causing discomfort or conflict. There are very real consequences for speaking up, as Bilkszto could tell you if he were still alive.
The suppression of differing viewpoints hinders the open exchange of ideas and stifles intellectual exploration. Differing opinions, even if uncomfortable, are crucial for intellectual growth and the development of critical thinking skills. Without the challenge of engaging with diverse viewpoints, individuals become complacent and fail to fully examine and refine their own ideas. But these warning fall on deaf ears. One falsely presumes that the point of the exercise is growth and development. The point of the exercise is conditioning and indoctrinations.
The safe space can do youth no good from the standpoint of doing good for youth. Sheltered environments shield individuals from the complexities and disagreements that exist in the broader society. In the real world of suppressing opinion and the expression of sentiment, it is those for whom the safe space exists who become fragile. That a Muslim student would fall apart in an art history class because a depiction of Muhammad appeared testifies to fragility of adherents to that religion—that and how the community rallied around her (see The Islamists Make Another Move). The chair of the sociology department at Columbia department cancelled Jonathan Rieder’s class “Culture in America” because he quoted Eminem (The Power of the N-Word). Why? Because students complained about a word. He was told by students that because he was white he is not allowed to say certain words. And so his chair cancelled the class he was most proud of.
To say whites are fragile for denying their complicity in racism when in fact they couldn’t possibly have perpetrated segregation and slavery misuses that term. The pushback against anti-white bigotry does not exhibit the quality of persons easily broken or damaged. Quite the opposite. Crumbling in the face of irreligious criticism or at hearing anti-black prejudice in the facts about black crime in America—these are instantiations of fragility. Insulation from the truth prevents individuals from developing the skills—the resilience—needed to navigate real-world disagreements and conflicts, as well as address the critical needs of communities. Overly protective safe spaces hinder students’ ability to engage in rigorous academic inquiry and debate. Higher education should prepare students for a complex and diverse world—diverse in terms of ideas and opinions—by encouraging them to grapple with difficult and controversial topics. (See My Right to My Views is Your Right to Yours.)
Moreover, safe spaces are divisive. Organizing spaces so that members of certain groups are presumed to enjoy the privilege of freely expressing their thoughts while being immune from criticism by restricting the expression of other thoughts conveys the unequal relations established by the structure of those spaces. This contributes to societal fragmentation by organizing participation based on shared identities and beliefs, with one of those groups expected to serve as controlled opposition. In the case of safe spaces based on affinity, this encourages self-segregation, when a free and open society rooted in individual should foster assimilation and integration by emphasizing viewpoint diversity over identity. The latter circumstance hinders the potential for meaningful dialogue and collaboration among people from different backgrounds. By avoiding discussions that challenge their beliefs, individuals miss out on opportunities to develop empathy and gain a deeper understanding of the experiences and perspectives of others. Open and respectful dialogue, even if uncomfortable, is essential for building bridges of understanding. Thus, by its own professed lights, the safe space is counter productive. But, as I noted above, this is not the actual goal of the safe space. Those who organizing these spaces accomplish what they mean to accomplish. Safe spaces re counterproductive for a reason.
The reality is not merely that safe spaces may suppress free thought, speech, and mutual understanding. It is their purpose to accomplish these things. The existence of safe spaces, in DEI training or in the organization of a classroom, the materials, the pedagogy, the seating, the festooning, is to achieve these ends. To be sure, the trainer or instructor may believe this is the right thing to do, but that only exposes her incuriousness, ignorance (of fact and right), and shallowness of thought. Those who design these ideas and programs, on the other hand—they know the objective.
It is not that safe spaces are well-intentioned but inadvertently limit open discourse, hinder intellectual growth, and prevent meaningful interactions among diverse individuals; their design and function is to contain and frame discourse and model interaction in such a way as to reinforce the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise is to perpetuate the myth that western society is illegitimate because white people built and sustain it—and because it exists for them. Never mind that this would be said of no other people or culture. Whites are an exceptional evil. The myth of white supremacy, of whites as uniquely racist, is perpetuated because it provides the motive for dismantling the West for the benefit of the corporations that strive to run the world. The safe space is a demonstration of the social logic that westerners are supposed to assume structures our collective existence. The character of that false assumptions tells us something about what those who control us have in mind.
* * *
Jürgen Habermas, a German philosopher and social theorist, introduced the concept of the “ideal speech situation” as a key element of his theory of communicative action and his broader philosophy of communicative rationality. Habermas’ work is concerned with the nature of communication, understanding, and the potential for rational discourse in human interactions. The ideal speech situation is a theoretical construct that represents a set of conditions under which communication can occur in its most pure, rational, and undistorted form. It serves as a normative benchmark against which real-world communication situations can be evaluated.
In the ideal speech situation, participants engage in open, honest, and uncoerced dialogue, free from various forms of power dynamics and constraints that might hinder the free exchange of ideas. This concept aims to establish the conditions necessary for achieving genuine understanding and consensus in communication. Key features of the ideal speech situation include: Sincerity: Participants are genuinely committed to expressing their true beliefs and intentions. They refrain from manipulating or deceiving others. Truth: Participants strive to convey accurate and reliable information. Equality: Participants interact as equals, without any inherent power imbalances. Their contributions are valued based on the strength of their arguments rather than their identity and social status. Inclusivity: All relevant information and perspectives are available and considered. No relevant viewpoint is systematically excluded. Freedom: Participants engage voluntarily and without coercion. They are free to express their opinions and engage in discourse without fear of reprisal. Rationality: Arguments are based on reason and logical justification. Emotional appeals and fallacious reasoning are identified and diminished. Critique: Participants are open to critical examination of their positions and are willing to revise their views considering valid counterarguments.
Habermas introduced the concept of the ideal speech situation to emphasize the importance of communicative rationality in fostering genuine dialogue, understanding, and consensus formation in democratic societies. He argued that while real-world communication often falls short of the ideal, striving towards the conditions of the ideal speech situation can lead to improved discourse and more legitimate decision-making processes. Some have questioned the feasibility and practicality of achieving the ideal speech situation in complex and diverse societies. Others highlight the challenges posed by structural inequalities and power dynamics that can impede genuinely equal and open communication. This latter claim is precisely the argument proponents of safe spaces make. Juxtaposing Habermas’ ideal speech situation to the social justice advocacy of safe spaces provides the contrast that exposes the latter’s authoritarian desire.
freedom and reason 