Safe places. That's what universities are supposed to be. But the big debate now in American campuses is, what exactly does this mean? When is a campus safe, and when is it not?
Over at Yale, a controversy erupted over the Halloween holiday, when an advisory was sent out to the student body warning about potentially offensive costumes. I think the school administration was feeling worried that head dresses or other ethnic outfits would be worn as costumes, and that Native Americans might find these costumes offensive, and so officials took action to prevent this.
(Reminds you of something? Like the controversy over the Halloween costume worn by Senator Sotto which some politician in Mindanao found offensive?)
That shouldn't have been a problem, except a professor, Erika Christakis, disagreed with this, and she wrote an email decrying how being politically correct had seemed to be taken to an extreme. Boy, was she in for a big shock. Students suddenly started accusing her of abuse and violence, and they demanded her resignation. As if that wasn't enough, the students also ganged up on her husband, and they stridently demanded that he apologize for her views.
(Which I thought set back the feminist movement by a century. Why would they expect the husband to be accountable for his wife's actions, when feminists have worked so hard to have wives have their distinct and independent voice from their husbands? Like she doesn't have a brain and views and beliefs separate from her husband?)
It makes one wonder how to navigate the uber serious issue of Halloween costumes. My niece, who is half Caucasian, dressed up as Michael Jackson with gloves and hat. Is she going to be accused of parodying black people? What about all those national costumes in Miss Universe? They won't allow satellite transmissions of the telecast on campuses because of how potentially offensive those can be to African Americans or Native Americans?
Anyway, another school, the University of Missouri, had its own safe space issue. Students have been picketing the campus about how racial relations weren't being addressed properly by the school. What kicked this protest movement into overdrive was when a campus reporter/photographer was almost lynched by protesters when he refused to leave the protest site. The protesters wanted a media-free space, but the reporter refused to leave. One thing led to another, and a teacher-protester finally invoked some muscle power so that she could have the campus reporter evicted.
I was a bit disturbed about the rhetoric being used by the students. They were flinging around language of violence and abuse, of feeling unsafe or under threat, when all that was happening was, someone else was disagreeing with their views. Since when has disagreement with a position meant physical harm?
As the press had it, American students will have to distinguish between intent to do harm to them, and just a simple divergence in views. The latter is something these students will have to deal with over the course of their lives. The corporate world isn't necessarily a nurturing environment. And if these students are not going to be prepared for criticism, to encounter it, to take it, and to marshal on despite it, they're going to be fertilizer for the competitive type-A's coming their way and swarming out like bees from schools in Asia and Europe.
It was reported that the husband, Mr. Christakis, had tried to explain to the students that the campus was an intellectual space rather than a safe place, but this idea was rejected vehemently, and he got cussed and heckled by the students. (In fact, there is a viral video going around of this encounter). Amazing. Did the students think they were going to finishing school instead of a venerable institution that (supposedly) subjects enrollees to rigorous academic scrutiny?
The discussion has sometimes been framed about freedom of speech co-existing with race relations and student rights. But aside from freedom of speech, which should rein paramount and should never be trampled upon, students will have to realize that the only reason they are in school is so that they can be educated. And they should not dictate what kind of education they should receive. They cannot impose parameters that their education should be sugar coated, or spoon fed, or marshmallow wrapped.
P.C. is good, and it has its benefits. Creating an atmosphere of learning, especially within the campus, is ideal. But telling students when they are wrong and exposing them to different concepts and ideas, even if it embarrasses them, is essential. It is exactly why students have to go to school, and it is the university's raison d'être. This mission of education trumps having to tiptoe around their potentially offended feelings or being hyper-sensitive to issues of race or sexuality.