Maybe One Day.

These ideas didn't receive the number of votes needed to pass at the moment. After three months they'll be eligible to be resubmitted onto the platform.

Back to list

-12 score

84 voters

End the Safe Space policy

Submitted 8 years ago by Jack O'Reilly

Locked
14comments

The safe space policy is damaging free speech on campus. It is important that free speech is encouraged, in order to have open and free debates among students. Presently the safe space policy prevents this, by giving some the power to silence opinions they do not agree with.

Sardar Berzo: 12:44pm on 17 Oct 16 Why are people so terrified of free speech? I thought University was supposed to be about preparing us for the real world. You'll never learn anything by silencing and censoring those you disagree with. When you silence somebody you are creating a rod for your own back, because you deny yourself the right to hear something. "To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? Or determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor? Isn’t it a famous old story that the man who has to read all the pornography, in order to decide what’s fit to be passed and what’s fit not to be, is the man most likely to be debauched?"
Daniel Atherton: 12:54pm on 17 Oct 16 Having organised events on campus featuring high-profile and contentious speakers, the idea that the SU is damaging free speech is ludicrous and ungrounded. There is law governing how the SU and University facilitate free speech on campus. There are also laws regarding health and safety. These do become intertwined on many occasions. But as long as provisions are met, and thought put into things, there is literally no barrier to free speech. The idea that the SU is able to, let alone wants to, silence any opinions contrary to their opinion (as if the SU is a single entity with a unified opinion) is wrong. This is why I have down voted this proposal.
Calum McGrath: 1:35pm on 17 Oct 16 In my book if someone has a bigoted opinion, you challenge them. You don't hide away and pretend the opinion doesn't exist. If we as students are afraid of challenging those that hold racist/homophobic/anti-Semitic views etc then who will? We can't just legislate these beliefs away - we have to confront them. Hiding doesn't solve anything. It makes the problem worse, and doesn't prepare you for the realities of life! There will always be bastards in this world - so challenge them! Make them squirm! Don't just ban them - its weak.
Philip O'Connor: 2:27pm on 17 Oct 16 A university is meant to be an institution of learning. Limiting free speech doesn't help to achieve this aim.
Malick Doucoure: 3:41pm on 17 Oct 16 Allowing racist/homophobic/anti-Semitic/sexist comments to enter the political (and social) lexicon of our campus can only yield negative outcomes. Students will only feel hurt and unsafe due to the nature of those opinions, therefore removing a "safe space" policy would only serve to be obstructive to creating a positive, welcoming campus. I'd also like to question whether it's really a "safe space" policy as the only things that aren't welcome (or to my knowledge atleast) are racist/homophonic/anti-semitic/sexist comments and to be fair you shouldn't need a "safe space" policy to stop those comments being made since it's common courtesy not to say such hateful things. I'm pretty sure we all enrolled to learn, not to spew bigotry and hate. If people really really want to express their sentiments they can always find somewhere of-campus to do it. Again, we're here to learn, not spread hate.
Rob Johnston: 4:40pm on 17 Oct 16 In my opinion, this proposal is completely unwarranted. The notion that the safe space policy limits free speech is wrong. You can freely discuss most issues with people as you would anywhere else, it's when things get hateful that the situation changes. I think many people forget that not everyone at Royal Holloway is here to discuss politics. Many people just want to get on with their course and not get caught up in politics or deal with upsetting topics. They have every right to come to this educational institution and not be bombarded with debates or even forced to give their opinions on issues. The safe space policy is common courtesy, just be polite as you would with anyone else, it's not too much to ask.
Ovais Malik: 6:09pm on 17 Oct 16 "With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards. It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths"- Noam Chomsky.
David Ellwood: 3:41am on 18 Oct 16 We live in a society where anything non-conformative is deemed to be biased or gender-discriminative. What happened to deb\tes on fundamental issues, and how on earth can one say that something will only yield negative outcomes? That is as presumptive as someone declaring war on Muslims as they are more likely to cause terror attacks; factually true, individually wrong. If you believe you've won a debate without debating, you should have no issue with debating someone on the "loser" side. Why on earth can't we have a civilised discussion without the interference of a fundamentally liberally biased group representing the rights of minorities to the detriment of the majority? One only needs to look to South Africa to see that this does not work - the effect of BBEEE on South African business is disastrous, and to believe the real world actually cares about gender or privilege is a disservice to your members.
Jamie Woods: 10:34am on 18 Oct 16 Safe spaces aren't campus wide. It gives people the right to stop people from nastily expressing hateful opinions and targeted abuse in places where they otherwise shouldn't happen (for example, homophobia at a random society gathering). There's absolutely no toe-stepping otherwise - the safe space policy doesn't equate to "you can't ever on campus say anything that could be considered at all offensive", that's stupid. Feel free to say whatever the fuck you want, and to openly debate anything. Just keep it away from places where it's not appropriate, as I gave an example of above.
Vlad Ivlev: 5:34pm on 18 Oct 16 ive been here a month and I still haven't encountered a safe space even though I have been warned about it. It seems to me that people who hold subjective false opinions (which you people wrongly label as dangerous) should be corrected and not silenced. Otherwise, without challenge, people who hold such opinions will create a mirror "safe space" to yours, where they gather and affirm their opinions. If you want to remove intolerance and bigotry, removing people who somehow got those views, is not the way. Labeling them, and pretending to know everything about them, having expectations of them without getting to know them, is lazy and arrogant.
Jr Mitchell: 6:41pm on 18 Oct 16 Can someone please clarify what the current safe space policy is, the original suggestion seems to suggest it is severely limiting the ability to discuss important issues which I doubt is the case, but nevertheless it would be good to know the details.
Benyamin Dupres: 7:39pm on 18 Oct 16 It's ironic that those endorsing the removal of safe spaces are those who hold unethical views themselves. We cannot and must not give in to fascists on campus, and by removing the safe space we are doing so. Hate speech has NO place on campus. If you hold racist/homophobic views, there is no room for debate.
Jakub Jankowski: 7:52pm on 18 Oct 16 Jack has raised a legitimate point. Spiked-online.com's survey of British universities labels our university as 'amber' and our Student Union as 'red'. This is not without good reason. The SU espouses such ridiculous rules as: (a) 'Examples of harassment include ‘using incorrect pronouns or gendered language towards or about an individual’ and ‘innuendo, mockery, jokes or lewd remarks’.' (b) 'Resolves: ‘Not to invite any visitor who is known to hold an affiliation to any fascist organisation from entering union premises... Not to allow any individual who is known to hold an affiliation to any fascist organisation to speak at a union event... Not to allow any individual who is known to hold an affiliation to any fascist organisation from distributing any written or recorded material in the union, or through union platforms, which expresses those views.’' (c) '‘Our Safe Space policy means that every member should feel welcome to participate in empowering, non-judgemental and non-threatening discussions... Understand that language can make others feel uncomfortable and create an intimidating space. For example using the word “gay” as something bad... Make sure that if your members are using terms that make someone feel uncomfortable, you all make an effort to stop using the term... If you are posting a comment or article that refers to upsetting things such as abuse, self-harm, rape or eating disorders (not an exhaustive list) post a “Content Warning” at the top. This helps to prevent people who have a strong response (such as post-traumatic flashbacks) to certain subjects encountering them unaware.’' These are nonsensical, arbitrary and trivial rules which should, by all means, be abolished. I see no reason, for example, why a scholar of the philosophy of fascism who happens to be a fascist should be arbitrarily 'No Platformed' simply because he sits on the 'wrong' side of the ideological spectrum, and wishes to give a lecture on Giovanni Gentile or Alfred Rosenberg. Why are the campus communists allowed to espouse violent revolution against the 'bourgeoisie', the forceful seizure of the 'means of production', and moreover, are allowed to bring radical speakers who endorse criminal and violent (read: terrorist) organisations such as Black Lives Matter onto university grounds? I don't think they shouldn't have the right to advocate such rubbish, that's why I'm for repealing this one-sided legislation. It was my 'privilege' to elaborate on this issue.
Steven Pettitt: 11:34pm on 13 Nov 16 Arguable the safe space policy is technically illegal: "The Education (No.2) Act 1986 requires every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of a higher education institution to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the institution and for visiting speakers. "

Moderation Policy

Royal Holloway Students' Union values free speech and recognises that debate and lively discussion are important parts of any democratic organisation. With this in mind, we aim to moderate discussion on this platform only where absolutely necessary. Posts warranting moderation include those which we consider to breach our Equality and Diversity Policy, our Freedom of Speech Policy, our Code of Practice, or our overall aim to create a democratic environment free from abuse, intimidation or harassment. If you are concerned about any posts on this site, please email voice@su.rhul.ac.uk

Basket

Maybe One Day.

End the Safe Space policy

Moderation Policy