No space for sensationalism

The recent fliers from the Columbia University College Republicans decrying “safe spaces” on campus have sparked a discussion that has much of Columbia defending the need for them. It’s valid and even healthy to examine the purpose of safe spaces on campus, but ultimately, in a country and on a campus where discrimination still exists, there is no doubt that these spaces are necessary.

It first should be noted that not every group means the same thing when calling for safe spaces. There are some, like those in the anti-ROTC faction, who have demanded a safe space to discuss their views in a setting where they would be free of disagreement. But the function of safe spaces, rather than the isolation of oneself from differing opinions, should be the cultivation of tolerance and trust in a group of individuals, and this trust should be the basis for wider engagement in the community. This is what spaces and groups like the Malcolm X lounge, the Stephen Donaldson lounge, and Cluster Q—Columbia’s LGBT Business Association—have in common, and this is what they have been setting out to accomplish for the decades many of them have been in existence. These spaces are a step toward a safer community in which discrimination is less tolerated, and less common.

But while the issue is an important one to discuss, the fliers have brought to public attention another concerning issue—that of the tactics the CUCR uses to ignite controversy and publicize its events. The fliers were abhorrent and purposely inflammatory, mocking an original set of campus fliers meant to discourage bigotry and intolerance. The CUCR seems to be banking on the knowledge that because its message is so controversial many will come out to hear it for themselves.

This is no new game for the CUCR. Earlier this semester they plastered the campus with another batch of fliers advertising a debate on gun control. Using a photo from a campus security notice, they posed the question, “They have guns, why don’t you?” The men in the image they used were black, and the crimes they were accused of, it turns out, did not involve guns. Their sensationalist methods worked, however, as after seeing the fliers, the campus was filled with buzz about the College Republicans and their event. Bringing figures like Ann Coulter and Geert Wilders to campus, the College Republicans use unacceptably extreme methods for bolstering their campus presence. Columbia is traditionally considered a bastion for left liberal politics, but when the College Republicans behave this way, they only confirm their fellow students’ attitudes toward them.

That being said, CUCR’s apology for undermining the goals of EAAH’s Safe Space Campaign and shift from safe space “debate” to “discussion” is one that should be appreciated. Hopefully, this is a sign that in the future, the College Republicans will stop using inflammatory tactics to promote their events and message. Anyone denying the claim that Columbia needs safe spaces should be doing everything in his power to ensure that Columbia is, after all, a safe space.