4
Thursday, May 5, 2016
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION
LARA MOEHLMAN
EDITOR IN CHIEF
JEREMY KAPLAN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
BRADLEY WHIPPLE
MANAGING EDITOR
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
I
attended Commencement to
support the seniors in my
life who’ve taught me to be
critical of the
world and try
to
change
it
for the better.
However,
hearing
Michael
Bloomberg
talk
about
microaggressions,
trigger warnings and safe spaces
reminded me of the confidence
with which many rich, white men
speak
on
experiences
they’ve
had the privilege to never go
through. In a single speech in
front of thousands, Bloomberg
demonstrated an incredible lack of
understanding of the experiences
of those with underprivileged
identities — experiences that many
of his policies as mayor of New
York City help create.
“The fact that some university
boards and administrations now
bow to pressure groups and shield
students from these ideas through
‘safe spaces,’ ‘code words’ and
‘trigger warnings’ is, in my view,
a terrible mistake,” Bloomberg
stated
after
reiterating
the
importance of college to introduce
students
to
“challenging
and
uncomfortable” ideas.
In regards to what Bloomberg
called “one of the most dangerous
places on a college campus” — the
safe space — I’d like to ask Michael
Bloomberg if he has ever attended
one. Bloomberg claimed these
spaces were unsafe because they
create “a false impression that we
can insulate ourselves from those
who hold different views.” As an
Arab-American on this campus,
I’ve been to several and can attest
to
the
difficult
conversations
that
occur
with
individuals
from all backgrounds. The term
‘safe’ includes psychological and
physical safety, which is necessary
for the kinds of conversations
Bloomberg claims to value. How
can such conversations take place
in spaces where marginalized
groups do not feel accepted and
remain silent from fear?
Bloomberg mentioned trigger
warnings as a conversation hurdle.
Trigger
warnings,
preferably
called “content warnings,” are
part of a courteous society that
acknowledges the pain found in
others’ experiences. If I want to
have discussions on sensitive topics
that might cause another person
significant pain, I’d inform them
so they can prepare themselves
in order to take care of their well-
being. If that means they choose
to leave a conversation or activity,
so be it. I may not share those
experiences and cannot rightfully
police how they respond.
“A microaggression is exactly
that: micro,” Bloomberg said,
minimizing
microaggressions’
impact. I have never been New
York City’s mayor and will not
comment on what it’s like to
have chosen to increase police
forces and surveillance of Muslim
communities, implement policies
like “stop-and-frisk” or to hold
a legacy policing people of color,
and likewise, Bloomberg should
have recognized he was out of line
to comment on experiences he has
never had when he’s responsible
for policies contributing to them.
Growing
up,
I
dealt
with
microaggressions
insinuating
I wasn’t fully American and
requiring I consistently explain I
do not support terrorism. Dealing
with microaggressions from a
young age has made questioning
everything about how I present
myself to the world second nature
— if I do or say this, am I hurting
or helping those who share my
identity? Microaggressions are
not micro for those forced to deal
with them. To Bloomberg, we
can’t and shouldn’t try to prevent
microaggressions “in politics or
in the workplace.” Why should
we not expect that we treat our
fellow
humans
with
respect?
Bloomberg seems to care only for
the privileged groups’ comfort at
the marginalized groups’ expense.
While I was left with a bitter
taste on my tongue, Bloomberg
did have some positive messages
in his speech — urging students
to get involved in politics by
voting and demanding more from
their leaders. Many commend
Bloomberg for his speech’s content
because he was “brave” and not
afraid
to
challenge
“political
correctness.” At a time when
the University of Michigan has
actively promoted their Diversity,
Equity & Inclusion campaign,
Bloomberg’s speech stood out
like a sore thumb on an important
day for many. Individuals can
have
conversations
on
issues
like police brutality and gender
inequality without being hateful.
It is important to recognize some
of these issues are “topics of
conversation” to you, but “topics of
one’s own life” to another.
“Oh, but that’s not how the
real world is?” True — many
would never claim such a thing.
The world isn’t a utopia with no
“-isms.” Many do not want to take
responsibility of their privileges
and dismantle the institutions
and
systems
granting
them.
Individuals who’ve always been
marginalized are still bogged
down with forms of injustice
morphing
throughout
history.
We will use the spaces where
future generations are educated to
create a culture of mutual respect,
awareness and acknowledgement
of how our differences impact our
lived experience. While Bloomberg
feels change in the way we treat
others is impossible, I know it isn’t.
—Nadia Karizat can be reached
at nkarizat@umich.edu.
Privilege blooms for Bloomberg
NADIA
KARIZAT
ROLAND DAVIDSON | OP-ED
Safe spaces deserve discusson
Last week, Michael Bloomberg
spoke to graduates about a number
of issues, including our nation’s
widening
political
divide,
the
importance of dedication and the
deleterious effects of safe spaces.
With many of these matters, there is
a deep generational divide between
our views and those of our parents.
This break was particularly salient
in Bloomberg’s discussion of safe
spaces, which he characterized
as serving to shield students from
ideas which they find controversial.
Myself, and many students within
the social justice community here,
would disagree with this sentiment.
I believe that safe spaces are essential
for creating meaningful dialogue,
but they do come with caveats.
I was fortunate enough to take
a course in criminology under
Sociology Lecturer PJ McGann.
Toward the end of the semester, we
spent a number of classes discussing
sexual violence. Nearly 30 percent
of undergraduate women reported
experiencing
nonconsensual
penetration or sexual touching by
force or incapacitation during their
time at the University of Michigan.
So there were definitely students
who had firsthand experience in
our 100-person lecture. McGann
was conscientious of their needs
and let our class know that if anyone
needed to step outside at any point
over the course of the lecture, they
were welcome to. This helped create
an environment where we could
earnestly listen and discuss one of our
campus’ and nation’s most pressing
issues. If a student were reliving past
trauma, how could they be expected
to engage in a class discussion? Safe
spaces allow for students to effectively
engage with controversial ideas.
Similarly, when students are taught
to recognize how people of color are
often tokenized in academic spaces
and how to stop this behavior, we can
have more fruitful conversations about
racial justice. This can additionally help
alleviate the psychological burden that
comes with being the only person of
your race in a room, an experience that
many of my friends are all too familiar
with. As a white person, I can count on
one hand the number of times that has
happened to me. Safe spaces help place
students of all backgrounds on equal
footing.
There are, however, legitimate
grievances
against
safe
spaces.
In the New Yorker article “The
Trouble with Teaching Rape Law”
Harvard Law Prof. Jeannie Suk
writes, “I often assign students roles
in which they have to argue a side
— defense or prosecution — with
which they might disagree. These
pedagogical tactics are common to
almost every law-school topic and
classroom. But asking students to
challenge each other in discussions
of rape law has become so difficult
that teachers are starting to give
up on the subject. About a dozen
new teachers of criminal law at
multiple institutions have told me
that they are not including rape law
in their courses, arguing that it’s
not worth the risk of complaints of
discomfort by students.” Clearly,
this is problematic. Without proper
training, how can we expect our
society to successfully fight against
endemic sexual violence? A safe space
is meant to engender a sense of comfort
without permitting students to avoid
essential learning.
Earlier this semester, the University
hosted Milo Yiannopoulos and Julie
Bindel for a debate entitled “From
Liberation
to
Censorship:
Does
Modern Feminism Have a Problem
with Free Speech?” The duo has been
banned from universities throughout
the
U.K.
for
their
purportedly
transphobic opinions and the effect
that their presence may have on the
campus environment. I think that this
is inappropriate. Universities are meant
to be bastions of open discussion, and
to not invite guest speakers because
of
their
convictions,
particularly
when those convictions aren’t even
the subject of discourse, hurts our
intellectual integrity. This is one of
the few cases where an adherence
to protecting campus climate has
damaged a University’s commitment
to intellectual excellence.
There
isn’t
a
dichotomous
relationship between safe spaces and
earnest
discussion.
Furthermore,
to paint the creation of a safe space
as an inevitably slippery slope to the
maladies which they have carried
in the past is disingenuous. On the
whole, they enhance those essential
conversations and, frankly, we could
do with more safe spaces at the
University. But there are definitely
cases where unyielding dedication
to making students feel comfortable
has proven destructive, and to ignore
these examples undermines how
important safe spaces are. A safe
space’s effectiveness largely depends
on its implementation. All of this
warrants a broader discussion about
the limits of safe spaces, where they
should be located and who should
be responsible for making sure they
are upheld. But that all starts with
breaking down the false binary that
Michael Bloomberg and others have
created.
—Roland Davidson is a
Public Policy senior.