Safe space culture 'kneecap' to intellectual debate, says legal society director

It had turned into a group therapy session.

In late March, Joanna Baron attended a discussion at McGill University entitled Beyond Ghomeshi, Creating Ethical Practices in Sexual Assault Trials. 

The former criminal defence lawyer and the current director of the Runnymede Society says she had expected the panel would result in a rigorous and substantive discussion around some of the many legal issues raised in the trial of Jian Ghomeshi. 

She was after all, at one of the country's pre-eminent law schools.

But Baron says the question and answer portion of the panel morphed into a discussion of sexual assault survivor issues. 

"I found the panel became more of a group therapy session. The student presenters introduced the panel, not by providing a thematic overview of the underlying issues [in the Ghomeshi trial], but by issuing trigger warnings," she says. 

The full interview is available in the audio player above. The following portions have been edited for clarity and length.

Why was the discussion that resulted problematic in your view?

It was problematic in my view because there were a number of intellectual and legal issues that because of the constraints of time and space were necessarily excluded from the discussion. If you start a panel discussion on a topic that is controversial and sensitive by issuing trigger warnings, you kneecap meaningful and intellectual debate from the outset. You start from the presumption that students who are intelligent young adults need to be protected from uncomfortable views or minority views. And that waters down the rigour of the discourse that can take place. 

You started reading about the notion of safe spaces on university campuses. What did you learn? 

One of the most interesting pieces of writing that has come out looks at the impact of safe spaces on students themselves, not just on the culture or on scholarship itself. Essentially, the argument made is that safe space culture has the tendency of magnifying and exacerbating pre-existing sensitivities. In other words, if someone has a phobia of elevators the way to alleviate that is not by ensuring they never get in an elevator, but by pointing out to them the safety mechanisms and the low probability of getting hurt in an elevator.

By coddling students and by protecting them from views that are uncomfortable or different from their own, you end up magnifying their own pre-existing prejudices. You avoid the purpose of university — which is to advocate for your own views- Joanna Baron

In the piece you wrote for The Walrus, you quote a Harvard Law professor who says that a number of her colleagues refuse to teach rape law because the number of complaints from students. What does that tell you about this whole safe space conversation? 

That is an extreme example, though it is a real one. The Harvard professor, Jeannie Suk says a law student who is unable to learn sexual assault or rape law is like a medical student who can't overcome their fear of blood. It's very unfortunate and a necessary part of becoming a criminal lawyer and I think that's a case where fears of sensitivity or triggering, students aren't getting an adequate education to do their job. 

From the perspective of the student - what's the harm of issuing a trigger warning so that people can better prepare themselves for what they're about to hear?  

There's a symbolic impact: it puts the sensitivity front and centre which magnifies the question of the sensitivity. Second of all, there is a real need to engage in rational debate and learning as a law student. If you're too triggered to do that, then perhaps you're in the wrong profession. 

Do you think this idea of safe spaces is part of a path - is it going to last or is it a detour? 

It's been building momentum for the last few years. There are a number of theories for why this is. Some people say that the current generation of students have been taught by their parents that they're entitled to being protected — whether its from peanut allergies or dangerous views. I also think internet and digital culture has something to do with this. Professors are afraid of online mobs that can form instantaneously. The other thing I would add is that increasingly universities feel they have to respond to students as consumers. Students are consumers who can take their tuition dollars elsewhere - and so university administrators and academics feel beholden to student demands, including demands for spaces. 

If there is a need to carve out safe spaces on campus - what does that say about the situation on campuses generally?

The only relevant notion of a safe space in a university context should be a safe intellectual safe space - a place where any line of intellectual thought is open for debate, beyond claims that have been thoroughly debunked by research. There are anecdotes of safe spaces where students have fuzzy blankets and pillows and candies - that's not a safe space; in my view that's a therapeutic space. If the question is does this say something about the harsh university environment, I'm unwilling to concede that.