Safe space in public discourse

In its 12-year history, Common Ground has become increasingly one of the most popular and transformative events on campus. Yet, the four-day retreat has recently found itself at the center of some controversy, as some have voiced their anxiety about how participants bring their stories and experiences back into the Duke fold. This controversy touches off on a larger national debate about college campuses and their role in exposing, or sheltering, students from potentially offensive or disturbing ideas and opinions. A recent editorial piece in the New York Times criticized some colleges for creating spaces where psychological security takes too much precedent over expressing certain opinions, be they offensive or controversial.

The general confusion about safe spaces suggests that the concept and implication of safe spaces vary. In the literal sense, a safe space is one in which individuals are protected from physical violence. But, in recent decades, social activists have redefined the term to include spaces in which individuals can also seek refuge from psychological and emotional harm. Common Ground operates under a similar conviction, with the hope that students will feel free from bias or judgment and, thus, share deeply personal stories. On-campus services like the Women’s Center and Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) also provide safe spaces, but they add an extra dimension of trust and confidentiality that public forums like Common Ground cannot.

Whereas safe spaces are created to emphasize sharing and communication in the present, trust spaces are designed to be more personal and develop over longer periods of time. Students should realize that there is a key distinction between privacy, between two individuals, and confidentiality, which may legally involve a third party. The best example of this is a Resident Assistant—who students can privately confide in, yet who is obligated under mandatory reporting policies to share certain details with a supervisor. In many situations, we clearly set guidelines and expectations about the impact of our words, as demonstrated by a psychologist’s disclosure or a policeman's reading of one's Miranda rights. In such situations, it is the responsibility of the speaker not to place trust where it should not be placed.

Safe spaces are often actual spaces or moments in time, and trust spaces often exist interpersonally. A third type of space—public discourse—on the other hand, is neither of these and, instead, a verbal thought experiment that none of us can or should avoid. On campus, we must be free from hateful speech and racism. Hateful comments or acts that maliciously harm others are impermissible. Yet, in her editorial, Judith Shulevitz presciently distinguishes between racism and discussions of racism that critically analyze and challenge.

What we must do in public discourse, then, is not to shy away from speech about the issues outright but, instead, to be accountable and cognizant—to think critically before over-generalizing and to avoid attacking others' ideas. We need, in other words, to interject elements from safe spaces and trusted relationships into our public discourse. Silencing dissent and uncomfortable opinions does not solve the problem, but neither does unchecked maliciousness. The need for safe spaces does not imply that everywhere else is unsafe from rampant bias and discrimination. Instead, it suggests that there is a place for the lessons learned at Common Ground and other similar forums in public discourse.