Wow...

[soysauce]

Motion 408: Defending Safe(r) spaces and No Platforming
Submitted by: Individuals
Speech for: Individual
Speech against:
Summation: Last Successful Amendment
Conference Believes
1. Safe(r) spaces can be defined in different ways, but common elements include zero tolerance
for discriminatory behaviour, being aware of the impact of one’s language, having autonomous
spaces for marginalised groups and being respectful of marginalised people’s subjective
experiences.
2. No platforming is a strategy used by Students’ Unions whereby they don’t provide a forum for
known oppressors or allow elected officers to share a platform with them.
3. Safe(r) spaces, no platforming and related measures such as the use of content warnings have
widely been criticised in parts of the media, with many commentators arguing that they serve
to simply ban opinions certain students don’t like and thereby censor free speech in
universities.
4. The magazine Spiked has created a ‘Free Speech University Ranking’, where universities and
SUs are assessed as to whether they ‘ban or actively censor ideas on campus’ or ‘chill free
speech through intervention’.
5. Misogyny, transphobia, racism and biphobia are often present in LGBT+ societies. This is
unfortunately more likely to occur when the society is dominated by white cis gay men.
6. The reps system exists to ensure that societies committees can always have a reserved place
for groups which disproportionately face oppression within the LGBT+ community.
7. Gay men do not face oppression as gay men within the LGBT+ community and do not need a
reserved place on society committees.
Conference Further Believes
1. There is no single definition of a safe(r) space. The term means different things to different
communities and individuals, and this is a strength of the term.
2. Safe(r) spaces are essential to liberation. When they are debated for academic ends, a concept that is
vital to the active participation of many students on campus is undermined.
3. Marginalised students should not be expected to debate what are often uncomfortable and/or triggering
issues for the benefit of ‘free speech’.
4. Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. If oppressive it has often damaging consequences for
marginalised people in ways privileged people cannot understand, and accusing students who need safe(r)
spaces of being coddled or authoritarian erases their experience of oppression.
5. No platforming is not censorship. Students’ Unions have a choice of who to host as speakers, and
denying them that platform is a choice that SUs should feel free to make on ideological and welfare-based
grounds. There are no consequences for those who fall foul of safe(r) space and no platforming policies
apart from them not being provided a platform as they are not being prevented from speaking overall.
6. Providing prejudiced people a platform on which to express bigotry justifies academic debate over
people’s personal experience of oppression, which further marginalises oppressed groups.
7. Spiked Magazine’s university rankings are vile. They are the epitome of this challenge to safe(r)
spaces, and they are misleading and wrongheaded.
Conference Resolves
1. To work with other liberation campaigns to create an intersectional working group on building and
maintaining safe(r) spaces, specifically liaising with liberation committees in CMs to provide advice on
how safe(r) spaces can be maintained.
2. To loudly and vociferously defend the concept of the safe(r) space and no platforming.
3. To actively support SUs in implementing safe(r) spaces and no platforming policies.
4. To encourage LGBT+ Societies that have a gay men’s rep to drop the position.

http://nusdigital.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document/documents/22513/Composited_LGBT_motions_and_amendments_2.3_NO_NAMES.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJKEA56ZWKFU6MHNQ&Expires=1458969219&Signature=KyZDFCJc95boPPsd5Ccudj9CMjk%3D

Well, as a left wing rights campaigner myself am I wrong to find this amendment really annoying? I didn't expect any less from the NUS to be honest but...

[Autokrator15]

Oh my god what is this crap?!

[hts]

These things are in place in basically every university in the US. My brother's friend at college got a formal warning from the school because a teacher heard him call a girl that he was with "doll". They considered that word to be gender-offensive. The professor did not even consult the girl before filing the formal complaint against him. Even after the girl went to the administration and explained that it was meant in a friendly way, they refused to rescind the warning. The warning explicitly says thats if he commits the same offense again he will be suspended from campus. That is just freakin ridiculous. It's kinda crazy how far this shit is going.

[soysauce]

Oh my god what is this crap?!

No Platforming is the practice of banning or obstructing speakers with "fascist", Racist or otherwise hateful views, which is fair enough really in some ways since no-one really wants Roosh V on campus, unless it was for a good kicking. The problem is that what exactly constitutes an "objectionable" view is open to interpretation, you can find something objectionable about pretty much anyone. It also doesn't take into account what they may have to contribute to a debate, debating with people who have different views to yourself is actually rather important.
The rationale is that

Marginalised students should not be expected to debate what are often uncomfortable and/or triggering
issues for the benefit of ‘free speech’.

But as a "marginalised" student I find that kinda arrogant, I don't feel unable to discuss issues that may be "uncomfortable" and I'm not particularly scared of being triggered by talking about it. Doesn't mean that I won't get offended but if I didn't want to know about their viewpoint I wouldn't bother turning up. I can't talk for everyone here, there are sensitive people who might struggle with that sort of thing. And I certainly wouldn't want them banned if they were coming to talk about something different (within reason).

[soysauce]

're:Safe Space policy - no idea what it's like in the US but here it's fairly unobjectionable, you're not allowed to make anyone feel uncomfortable for who they are but there's basically no discrimination anyway.

[Siggon Kristov]

Oh my god what is this crap?!

No Platforming is the practice of banning or obstructing speakers with "fascist", Racist or otherwise hateful views, which is fair enough really in some ways since no-one really wants Roosh V on campus, unless it was for a good kicking. The problem is that what exactly constitutes an "objectionable" view is open to interpretation, you can find something objectionable about pretty much anyone. It also doesn't take into account what they may have to contribute to a debate, debating with people who have different views to yourself is actually rather important.

The rationale is that

Marginalised students should not be expected to debate what are often uncomfortable and/or triggering
issues for the benefit of ‘free speech’.

But as a "marginalised" student I find that kinda arrogant, I don't feel unable to discuss issues that may be "uncomfortable" and I'm not particularly scared of being triggered by talking about it. Doesn't mean that I won't get offended but if I didn't want to know about their viewpoint I wouldn't bother turning up. I can't talk for everyone here, there are sensitive people who might struggle with that sort of thing. And I certainly wouldn't want them banned if they were coming to talk about something different (within reason).

Well some friends and I are trying to get a safe spaces project started on campus, to sensitise lecturers to issues affecting LGBTQ+ students (like their higher than average vulnerability to mental health issues), and how they may unintentionally worsen these. There are a lot of violently homophobic things said in class, and they have to be taken seriously because people outside of the university do the same things that people inside say they would do. Sometimes it's the students, and sometimes it's the lecturers themselves who say things.

One challenge is that anti-LGBT sentiments are held by the majority. This means that it is harder to implement safe spaces without backlash, however this also means that there is a greater need for safe spaces, because anti-LGBT sentiments can becoming overwhelming on someone who is LGBTQ+.

[soysauce]

Oh my god what is this crap?!

No Platforming is the practice of banning or obstructing speakers with "fascist", Racist or otherwise hateful views, which is fair enough really in some ways since no-one really wants Roosh V on campus, unless it was for a good kicking. The problem is that what exactly constitutes an "objectionable" view is open to interpretation, you can find something objectionable about pretty much anyone. It also doesn't take into account what they may have to contribute to a debate, debating with people who have different views to yourself is actually rather important.

The rationale is that

Marginalised students should not be expected to debate what are often uncomfortable and/or triggering
issues for the benefit of ‘free speech’.

But as a "marginalised" student I find that kinda arrogant, I don't feel unable to discuss issues that may be "uncomfortable" and I'm not particularly scared of being triggered by talking about it. Doesn't mean that I won't get offended but if I didn't want to know about their viewpoint I wouldn't bother turning up. I can't talk for everyone here, there are sensitive people who might struggle with that sort of thing. And I certainly wouldn't want them banned if they were coming to talk about something different (within reason).

Well some friends and I are trying to get a safe spaces project started on campus, to sensitise lecturers to issues affecting LGBTQ+ students (like their higher than average vulnerability to mental health issues), and how they may unintentionally worsen these. There are a lot of violently homophobic things said in class, and they have to be taken seriously because people outside of the university do the same things that people inside say they would do. Sometimes it's the students, and sometimes it's the lecturers themselves who say things.

One challenge is that anti-LGBT sentiments are held by the majority. This means that it is harder to implement safe spaces without backlash, however this also means that there is a greater need for safe spaces, because anti-LGBT sentiments can becoming overwhelming on someone who is LGBTQ+.

I can see where you're coming from, obviously I'm fully supportive of policies protecting minorities. My only concern is that in the context of the UK it sometimes feels like it goes too far and shuts down legitimate debate. As a member of a "marginalised" group myself it does seem that a lot of policies are out of touch or irrelevant. The resolution against "cis white male" gay members of Lgbt societies kinda highlights this.


But in your context I guess my concerns aren't really relevant,

[Autokrator15]

The whole idea of a safespace is bullshit. We must realise that the campus is a place where you come into contact with various ideas including those who are controversial.

We cant have this gender sensitive or LGBT safespaces because it will only give way to the progressive bias that is already fucking up this world. Universities need to be without political colour.

The best solution is to have rules that state that everyone treats eachother with decency and let everyone keep their dignity whilest still being able to speak your mind freely.

And being warned for calling a girl a doll is nothing more than the proof that a cancer is spreading in these universities.

Oh and this CIS thing makes me puke.. really they are creating them and us scenario's..

[Siggon Kristov]

I can see where you're coming from, obviously I'm fully supportive of policies protecting minorities. My only concern is that in the context of the UK it sometimes feels like it goes too far and shuts down legitimate debate. As a member of a "marginalised" group myself it does seem that a lot of policies are out of touch or irrelevant. The resolution against "cis white male" gay members of Lgbt societies kinda highlights this.

But in your context I guess my concerns aren't really relevant,

Yeah, in my context, it's actually an issue of safety. In yours, open discussion wouldn't be so bad since it can lead to understanding in the end. My concern, however, is this specifically...

Marginalised students should not be expected to debate what are often uncomfortable and/or triggering
issues for the benefit of ‘free speech’.

But as a "marginalised" student I find that kinda arrogant, I don't feel unable to discuss issues that may be "uncomfortable" and I'm not particularly scared of being triggered by talking about it. Doesn't mean that I won't get offended but if I didn't want to know about their viewpoint I wouldn't bother turning up. I can't talk for everyone here, there are sensitive people who might struggle with that sort of thing. And I certainly wouldn't want them banned if they were coming to talk about something different (within reason).

What is the context of "debate" in the whole thing? I think you're narrowing it down to scheduled events. Does it refer to discussions/debates in the classroom? If so, I don't think it's fair to expect that someone should just choose to not turn up to class. The classroom needs to be a place where persons can feel comfortable. I don't mean they shouldn't have their ideas/beliefs/opinions challenged, but they shouldn't feel unsafe. I don't think persons should be expected to participate in a discussion that makes them uncomfortable.

The whole idea of a safespace is bullshit. We must realise that the campus is a place where you come into contact with various ideas including those who are controversial.

It's not just about ideas; when persons feel safe expressing certain opinions against marginalised groups, they also feel safe committing certain acts of violence against those groups. I don't see why it's necessary to protect the 'freedom' to threaten marginalised groups, or make them feel uncomfortable. Less than 5 years ago, a mob of students chased and tried to attack 2 supposedly homosexual students. The students (who were being chased) ran to security guards for help, only to be brutalised by those security guards. The security guards faced disciplinary measures from their employers, but no legal sanctions. None of the students who were in the mob faced any legal sanctions, or any disciplinary measures from the school, even though police officers had arrived on the scene and could have very well detained some of them like they detain LGBTQ+ people who 'cause a scene' somewhere.

I have a lecturer who blamed "homosexuals" and "battymen" for the PNP's recent election loss. It was a pretty shitty claim. Many persons are talking about many different things that could have resulted in the JLP winning the election, however the election was so close that I don't think that anyone can prove their claims without doing research. Of course, someone couldn't argue against him, because merely defending LGBTQ+ people will get everyone to think that you're LGBTQ+, and then you have to start watching out for your own safety. I would have to watch out for my grade, because this specific class is one where 100% of the grade is from coursework, no exams. My name has to be on my papers.

There is an imbalance in who is able to express their ideas. LGBTQ+ people cannot be as vocal as non-LGBTQ+ people, without having to constantly think about their safety or reputation. Anti-LGBTQ+ people can say anything they want, and not have to worry about anything.

But here again, a thread where you talk bullshit from privilege.

[soysauce]

What is the context of "debate" in the whole thing? I think you're narrowing it down to scheduled events. Does it refer to discussions/debates in the classroom? If so, I don't think it's fair to expect that someone should just choose to not turn up to class. The classroom needs to be a place where persons can feel comfortable. I don't mean they shouldn't have their ideas/beliefs/opinions challenged, but they shouldn't feel unsafe. I don't think persons should be expected to participate in a discussion that makes them uncomfortable.

To clarify this no-platform policy applies to invited speakers only, no hate or prejudice would be tolerated from a member of university staff. I guess there's a grey area where a controversial speaker is invited for a specific class but I guess that's down to circumstance.

The whole idea of a safespace is bullshit. We must realise that the campus is a place where you come into contact with various ideas including those who are controversial.

We cant have this gender sensitive or LGBT safespaces because it will only give way to the progressive bias that is already fucking up this world. Universities need to be without political colour.

The best solution is to have rules that state that everyone treats eachother with decency and let everyone keep their dignity whilest still being able to speak your mind freely.

And being warned for calling a girl a doll is nothing more than the proof that a cancer is spreading in these universities.

Oh and this CIS thing makes me puke.. really they are creating them and us scenario's..

Basically as I understand it a safe space policy is just guaranteeing that everyone will be treated with respect, nothing more than that really. If the progressive bias you talk about is denying people the right to openly discriminate against people in class then I'm glad it exists.

and, I probably talk for a lot of people here in saying that if you tried calling me doll then I'd break your nose...