[mcjon77]

Yes, most people go to universities for the credential in order to gain employment. However, the reason why that credential is valuable in obtaining employment is because it implies that the holder of the credential has developed certain skills as part of their education.

One of those skills is the ability to think critically about a variety of topics. My assumption is that University of Chicago believes that in order to develop those critical thinking skills, it is a REQUIREMENT to learn an environment with a free and open exchange of ideas.

Students that want the credential BUT they do not want to complete one of the requirements of that credential should reconsider whether the credential is right for them or perhaps find another university.

To use your grocery store/gallon of milk analogy, a more accurate version would be if I went to a grocery store and asked for a gallon of milk, but demanded that it be zero calories and made from tomatoes. The store owner would tell the customer that they can buy tomato juice or water, but there is nothing labeled as MILK which meets their requirements.

[Navarr]

> it is a REQUIREMENT to learn an environment with a free and open exchange of ideas.

This is going to get buried, but I feel like I need to write it somewhere.

The biggest argument I've seen /for/ safe spaces is that, outside of them, it is very possible for a certain type of conversation to be drowned out. Safe spaces, by limiting some types of conversation, can allow other types of conversations to foster.

In a purely "free speech" environment, someone can just yell their opinion on repeat, talking over everyone, etc. A safe space can allow certain topics room to talk that they might not get otherwise.

I agree with the concept that UoC should not have to _provide_ safe spaces or trigger warnings, but I feel like both can have their place for an exchange of ideas (safe spaces) or to prepare people for something they're uncomfortable with (trigger warnings).

Viewing them solely as a political attempt to stifle free speech reads rather privileged, based on the above notion I gained elsewhere. I can't quite describe why, which is disappointing to myself - but perhaps safe spaces are needed in order for minority topics to gain the room they need to be discussed.

[xanderstrike]

The idea of a safe space is exactly what you what you said was the problem with free speech though. Any given person's "safe space" will be a place where their opinions are the only ones, so they're not challenged or offended.

Safe spaces only work if you set up a safe space for every possible viewpoint, or you ban any form of interaction within the safe space.

[Navarr]

It can be, yes.

But if you're trying to discuss native american problems and someone just keeps interjecting that focusing on native american problems is racist - then you're not really getting anywhere either - was sort of my point.

I don't think they exist to stifle opposing viewpoints, but to at least attempt sane discussion on certain topics that would otherwise not get the opportunity to be discussed.

[jaredklewis]

But wasn't it possible to discuss ideas amongst allies before safe spaces? I think groups like AIM, for example, provide a great forum for such activities. Likewise, I think student advocacy groups are an excellent idea.

What I don't like about the concept of safe spaces–and I say concept because I have never actually experienced one– is that I would prefer universities, which often have connections with government, to have as few censorship powers as possible.

[aNoob7000]

The example you are using of someone that keeps interrupting is really not a safe space issue to me but really a professor allowing someone to be rude.

There's no need for safe spaces just a professor who can allow for ideas to be exchanged in class whether they are hurtful or not and keep the discussion civil and moving forward.

[Chathamization]

> However, the reason why that credential is valuable in obtaining employment is because it implies that the holder of the credential has developed certain skills as part of their education. One of those skills is the ability to think critically about a variety of topics.

I don't think that's actually the case. In my experience, employers care whether or not a person is generally competent (often using degrees as a type of signalling, even if that's not accurate), if they can justify the hiring purchase to others (IE, do they have a decent defense if you're a terrible employee), and whether or not you would excel in that particular job (hence asking you questions about it and your work style in general).

I can't think of a case where an interviewer was attempting to see if the candidate was able to think critically about a variety of topics (topics not connected to the particular job). I don't know of any example of, say, a programmer getting interviewed and being asked how they would interpret a particular piece of literature, or being particularly interested if they frequented a political debate group. Such things are almost never considered particularly important when resume suggestions are given.

However, if you have examples of something like this I would be interested in hearing them.

[crystalmeph]

I don't think mcjon was suggesting that interviews for technical positions frequently veer off into discussions about literature.

Rather, I think the experiences you are "supposed" to get in a traditional 4 year university education - such as discussions about literature and other topics not directly related to your degree - are widely believed to improve your ability to think in ways that perhaps aren't directly quantifiable, but nevertheless provide significant benefit to your employer.

These benefits can manifest, for example, in employees that are able to handle disagreements among themselves rather than running to their manager every time they butt heads. Or employees that are simply able to learn new systems without extensive hand-holding through every step of the process.