by Sophia Ludtke ’20, Feature Editor

In February 2017, Milo Yiannopoulos, a right-wing political commentator, was scheduled to visit the University of California, Berkeley campus. In anticipation of his arrival, violent protests erupted, causing almost $100,000 worth of damage to the university’s campus. Amidst concerns about safety, Milo’s speech was cancelled 20 minutes before he was scheduled to deliver it. UC Berkeley, ironically the birthplace of the 1964 Free Speech Movement, was criticized for exercising intolerance towards opposing viewpoints following the cancellation.

The tension that erupted during the Berkeley protests exposes a deeper question institutions across America have been grappling with in recent months: how can schools, communities, and even the country as a whole, continue to provide marginalized groups with the “safe spaces” they desire without silencing the voices of those holding opposing viewpoints?

Newark Academy certainly hasn’t been free from these discussions in recent months. Teachers and students alike have voiced genuine uncertainty about how best to express controversial viewpoints and this uncertainty has discouraged some students from engaging with some more contentious issues altogether. So, I was curious to learn how college campuses, which in a sense serve as “role models” for high schools, have recently dealt with some of these issues.

Besides the UC Berkeley incident, several other recent incidents surrounding the idea of safe spaces on college campuses have made the news, reflecting just how pertinent and controversial the topic is.

In 2016, the University of Chicago Dean of Students John “Jay” Ellison issued a letter to the incoming Class of 2020 claiming that the university’s “commitment to academic freedom means that … [they] do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.” Many applauded the university’s efforts, claiming that they were “bucking the trend” and combating ideological conformity. However, others criticized the letter, claiming that it was naive and failed to address very real concerns about sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination on college campuses.

For instance, in response to Ellison’s letter, Michael S. Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, voiced his continued support for safe spaces, claiming, “There are some things, after all, that a university should refuse to legitimate or dignify by treating them as subjects for academic discussion.” He adds, “When we make a subject part of a debate, we legitimate it in ways that may harm individuals and the educational enterprise.”

Indeed, there are two kinds of safe spaces. Maintaining a physically safe campus, in which students won’t feel targeted by threats or violence, seems to be unanimously agreed upon by institutions. However, the idea of ideological safe spaces has stirred up debate. And to further complicate the issue, the distinction between these two types of safe spaces–the physical and the ideological–can be murky.

Former president Barack Obama even weighed in on the discussion, demonstrating just how important it is that we continue to discuss and address the topic of safe spaces. In his opinion, college campuses should “create a space where a lot of ideas are presented and collide, and people are having arguments, and people are testing each other’s theories, and over time, people learn from each other, because they’re getting out of their own narrow point of view and having a broader point of view.”

It is important to note that the discussion surrounding safe spaces is not limited by party lines nor is it limited to the confines of a college campus. It is debate that pertains to all of us, and one which insists that we continue to ask challenging questions about our individual communities’ values.