College campuses today are growing to become more diverse than ever before and students are fighting for spaces on campus to promote an inclusive environment for any gender, race, ethnicity, or social background. These safe spaces are essentially a protective escape from the prejudice and pressures of social injustice. Quite recently the University of Chicago proclaimed to its incoming undergraduate freshman class that their “commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own." Certainly, all students on campus deserve to be treated with respect but college campuses cannot continue to coddle and protect groups of students simply because they won't be ready to face what is outside of college campuses. Campuses that disinvite guest speakers who perspectives may conflict with groups of students is not protecting them but ultimately stripping them of the process of learning to deal with alternative views and outlooks. These places for students to be safely protected on college campuses has been ignited by popular culture that is drifting towards safe spaces and trigger warnings. Today, this movement has gained so much momentum that it is causing universities to act upon it.

The Obama administration made an effort to force college campuses to change the way we view the seriousness of sexual harassment and violence. After the recent national outrage for the Stanford University rape case, Vice President Biden became outraged and proclaimed that he would like the federal government to "take away their money" if a college or university fails to change its sexual harassment and assault allegations and punishments. So what justifies the difference between protecting sexual assault and protecting verbal harassment? Where do we draw the line? The U.S. Department of Education and Justice developed a new definition of what classifies offensive speech on campus: allowing for the punishment of individuals for "any unwelcome conduct of sexual nature", including comments which may not seem objectionable to an "objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation."

It is important to note the difference between the rules on public versus private campuses. In private campuses, it does not become a First Amendment issue because they are allowed to restrict the expression of ideas on their campuses if they choose to do so. They wisely choose to avoid that conflict but in turn, protect the rights of students to express a full range of ideas.

The freedom of expression is an important component of academic freedom on college campuses. It allows students to advance knowledge and suppressing ideas is sending students into a one-way tunnel of knowledge. Our job as students in the 21st century is to find new ways to improve existing knowledge. College campuses are important epicenters for change in the future. Change cannot develop without allowing for debate, collaboration, and differences.

I don't think we should ignore social harassment but instead remind ourselves that our opinions are not the only ones that exist. We cannot protect every group of people who in the future will have to face social injustice in the real world. Essentially, I see safe spaces as a way to segregate our universities based on social issues we face. But what is ironic is that now more than ever universities are encouraging "inclusiveness" and "diversity". Sounds kind of ironic to me. Yes, students need to address topics that make people uncomfortable - racism, discrimination, sexual assault, religious persecution. We should encourage for spaces for discussion for people to express their ideas and concerns in order to learn without segregating these groups. College campuses should be encouraging freedom of expression in all spaces because knowledge is the most powerful tool at universities.