If you have as much free time as I do and like wasting as much of it as possible you might have read some of The Monitor. For those with lives, The Monitor is Marymount Manhattan’s very own school newspaper. If you’re a Marymountainite (or Griffin if you prefer) then this isn’t news to you. It’s a daily struggle for many to wade through the thousands of unread copies that litter the second floor library.

As a fan of reading and writing and all things editing, I make it a hobby to read each new print. I then go at the pages with a pen, revising and judging and crossing out. This week’s cover story was of particular interest to me because, as is so often the case with The Monitor, the topic had great potential for a truly good piece of journalism. However, even with low expectations I was let down.

The article promiscuously titled “What Do You mean ‘Safe Space’?” attempts to tackle questions regarding this dynamic world of (post)political-correctness, a characteristic of modernity that so many feel plagued by. It kicks off with some decent background on the topic to set the stage, including Trump’s name of course, among a list other schools like Yale that have adopted the concept Safe Space Campuses.

The author prompts us by asking “What is a ‘safe space’ exactly?” and “Does Marymount College work to effectively create a safe space or does our institution fall into the trap of perpetuating a culture of silence?” Provoking stuff, no doubt. She then explains what a safe space is and why they began, at the heart of which is ‘to ensure inclusivity’. All seems to be going smoothly until the end of her second introductory paragraph in which she states, continuing on the guidelines that are expected to be followed in safe spaces, “They must only speak constructively about the institution and provide potential solutions to problems presented amongst others.” I am not sure whether this is necessarily true. As the author illustrates in her piece, sometimes asking the right questions to create a dialogue is more than enough, whether those questions be motivated in anger or acceptance.

Semantically, this is the drop-off point for this piece. The next paragraph includes “we are told to watch our language due to the ‘exclusive’ nature of our opinions. Along with this, if a student says something problematic in the room, we are encouraged to ‘call them out’” but ultimately fails to provide an example or quote regarding this ‘exclusive nature’, something that could have driven this point home with the poignancy that the final product lacks, as well as failing to give some semblance of a clue as to what is considered ‘problematic’ in this context. This point is immediately followed by “However, if conversations become too uncomfortable, it is implied that we should stop. While students have started to question the functionality of the safe space, the guidelines continue to be enforced.” My biggest gripe with this excerpt is that it tells in a moment where showing could have been a big stride for the point trying to be made. Even two paragraphs later, when the first quote is used, it is just a comment on one individual’s feelings regarding Trump supporters in safe spaces. It fails to address the student body questioning the state of the safe place or illustrate an instance in which stopping discussion is implied.

In the following paragraph is where I first became interested in this piece for all the wrong reasons. Following the author’s thoughts on a lack of office for the Black and Latino Association, during which she says “…we essentially have no official office in which to congregate”, an injustice no doubt, she states that “It is unfair for students to have to edit or censor their passion or emotions in regards to racism. If a student who voted for Trump is in the room, it is also unfair for other students who are going to be directly impacted by his executive orders to have to separate the person from the vote.” What this train of thought fails to address is that there are many different reasons that people vote for who they for. While I detest the actions of our president, I can’t in good conscious live life assuming that everyone who voted for him is a racist homophobic that voted, not for a government shake-up, but for ideologies rooted in hatred and isolationist anti-globalist beliefs. In addition to this is the fact that, at face value, this seems more like a plea for the ability to actively (verbally or otherwise) condemn Trump supporters. Separating the voter from the vote is essential in creating the sense of empathy that this elections divide sorely lacked.

Furthermore, in the next paragraph the author continues this thought by adding “…it is unreasonable for faculty and administration to request students who are immigrants and come from immigrant families to separate a voter from their ideology when they casted their votes based off of ideology rather than policy which Trump was obviously lacking.” Aside from being an egregious false alternative, this rhetoric is exactly the type of speech that so many people attribute to the flaw(s) of the safe space approach (of which I support). The only thing unreasonable in my eyes is to make assumptions on another person’s character based on such little information. There are far too many other options for why somebody might have voted differently than you and to exclude these possibilities is not only an act of close-mindedness (behavior that is in direct contrast to the core values of the safe space initiative) but a direct disregard for fellow students, as well as a mockery of a movement that prides itself on its self-proclaimed inclusivity.

The article goes on to quote The Monitor’s very own print editor who shed some light on the ‘ramped up’ concept of safe space following the election in an attempt to “make sure all students feel welcomed in a space”. It is at this point that the quoted draws the line. “This becomes oppressive”, he states, “...because we can’t have these political discussions about how awful Trump is because someone who voted for him may feel uncomfortable in the room. We shouldn’t have to separate the personal from the political in these safe spaces, especially when the personal is so political right now.” My issue with this excerpt is that all it does is present this quote with no follow up.It essentially just elongates a sentiment that has been in development throughout the article. Also, it implies the absurd notion that safety and comfort are interchangeable. I see nothing wrong with someone feeling uncomfortable when speaking on serious issues. That is to be expected. But to feel uneasy is not the same as feeling unsafe or as if you are being attacked. It is precisely in this cushioning of vague words and concepts that many folks’ issues with safe spaces and political correctness stems from. The biggest step to understanding something is clarity, and exact meanings/definitions are essential for that level of transparency to be achieved.

This feeling is again reiterated in the closing paragraph in which the author states that “it shouldn’t be requested of students to separate their political beliefs for the sake of maintaining the status quo”, an idea that seems to contradict the ‘we have a right to get in each other’s’ faces about political rhetoric' that the entirety of the article contains.

Two paragraphs later is where the strength in the authors voice lies. She follows an introductory sentence regarding how some students feel deterred from protesting by following up with an example from recent memory. This is great use of an example and what I felt was lacking from the introductory paragraphs. However, this also would have been the perfect place for a quote but unfortunately there was not. I haven’t much issue with the tackling of the subject of students’ reasons for not protesting except for when the author states that “it is unfair for faculty to begrudge or look down at students differently for not starting campus wide protests.” It could easily just be mine own experience but many professors I’ve met not only don’t mind my engaging in protests, but even go as far as to encourage such behavior. In addition, I think the section of this piece that focuses on actors of minority backgrounds fearing being ‘blacklisted’ for speaking out against white-role dominated shows was written very well. I believe this would have made for a great concentration piece.

That being said, I will still continue to read The Monitor in hopes that it actually attacks the topics it suggests it does with its headlines. I will always support free speech and the opening of dialogue regarding topics concerning the very many grey areas of life. It is my hope that the paper recognizes the potential power and influence it possesses and does not squander such invaluable assets. As always, don’t take anything I say too seriously and enjoy your weekend. May you all prosper and get laid.