Safe Spaces on College Campuses: An Argument Against
This argumentative essay contends that safe spaces are misplaced within college campuses, drawing on two primary sources: a Point/Counterpoint piece by Zhang and Mansouri and Alan Levinovitz's article on trigger warnings and religious students. The paper identifies four key reasons against safe spaces: they restrict the intellectual broadening that is central to higher education, they undermine the cultivation of tolerance and liberal democracy, they reduce opportunities to counter extremism through dialogue, and they silence controversial but important civil discourse. The essay also addresses and refutes the primary counterargument — that safe spaces protect marginalized students — concluding that such protections ultimately trap students in ideological isolation.
- Introduction: The Safe Spaces Debate in Higher Education: Defines safe spaces and states thesis against them
- The Purpose of a Campus and Intellectual Openness: Campuses must broaden student perspectives, not limit them
- Tolerance, Liberal Democracy, and Diverse Perspectives: Diverse ideas cultivate tolerance and democratic citizenship
- Safe Spaces and the Problem of Extremism: Open debate reduces extremism; safe spaces worsen polarization
- Free Speech, Civil Rights, and the Dangers of Silencing Debate: Safe spaces suppress vital civil rights conversations
- Addressing the Counterargument: Protection of Marginalized Students: Refutes claim that safe spaces protect vulnerable students
- Conclusion: Restates all arguments; reaffirms thesis against safe spaces
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The essay maintains a clear, consistent thesis throughout and returns to it explicitly in the conclusion, giving the argument strong structural cohesion.
- Each body paragraph advances a distinct reason against safe spaces, making the argument easy to follow and logically cumulative.
- The paper acknowledges and directly refutes the strongest counterargument — that safe spaces protect marginalized students — before concluding, demonstrating awareness of opposing views.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates classical argumentative structure: a stated thesis, sequentially numbered supporting claims drawn from cited sources, a rebuttal of the counterargument, and a summary conclusion that restates the thesis with the weight of the preceding evidence behind it. Grounding each claim in specific articles models responsible source integration in persuasive writing.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a definition of safe spaces and a clear thesis statement. Four numbered body paragraphs each advance a separate argument against safe spaces. A fifth paragraph addresses the counterargument. The conclusion synthesizes all four supporting claims and reasserts the thesis. This seven-section progression — introduction, four claims, rebuttal, conclusion — is a textbook model of the classical argumentative essay.
Introduction: The Safe Spaces Debate in Higher Education
One of the major and challenging reforms in modern-day higher education is the notion of safe spaces for students. Even though the concept of safe spaces is multifaceted, in this paper it will be used to mean the shielding of students from ideological content considered threatening — whether that content involves religious ideology or ideology directed against minority or marginalized student groups (Rose; Guterl). The paper draws on two articles: "Point/Counterpoint: Do Safe Spaces Belong on College Campuses?" by Yue Zhang and Kavahn Mansouri, and "How Trigger Warnings Silence Religious Students" by Alan Levinovitz. The position taken here is that safe spaces have no place on college campuses, and the reasons supporting this position are presented in the body of this paper.
The concept of safe spaces within institutions of higher education is rooted in Title IX and the sex discrimination law of 1972. That law, which was intended to protect students from sexual discrimination, has been widely adopted and proven useful in its application. The safe space concept is considered an expansion of Title IX; however, its adoption and application have become increasingly controversial (Rose). Although some — especially campus administrators — consider it essential for the protection of disempowered and marginalized student groups, the majority of scholars regard it as misplaced and contrary to the core function of an institution of higher learning, which is to open individuals up intellectually.
The Purpose of a Campus and Intellectual Openness
Safe spaces on campuses are misplaced and ill-advised for several reasons. First, the purpose of a campus is not merely to transmit skills but also to widen the ideological perspectives of students. At a campus, students should be willing to expand their horizons and thereby develop the ability to independently evaluate information they will inevitably encounter once they leave (Rose). By remaining open to a wide variety of ideologies, students become better citizens, more creative thinkers, and more capable of analyzing new ideas. The introduction of safe spaces limits the variety of ideas presented to students, restricts debate and argument, prevents students from testing other perspectives, and confines people to their own narrow views on important issues.
Tolerance, Liberal Democracy, and Diverse Perspectives
Second, a wide variety of ideas and diverse perspectives are important within a campus environment because they encourage and promote liberal democracy while at the same time cultivating tolerance — a quality that is in many ways contrary to basic human instinct (Rose). Campus graduates go on to occupy crucial decision-making positions within society, and it is important that such individuals be able to live alongside opinions, perspectives, ideas, and ways of life they may personally dislike. Although tolerance does not equal acceptance, it enables a person to speak their mind on matters they disagree with. Crucially, tolerance allows individuals to refrain from using intimidation, violence, bans, or threats to silence those on the opposing side (Zhang and Mansouri). The use of safe spaces on campuses deprives students of these formative experiences and their associated benefits.
Conclusion
In conclusion, safe spaces within campuses contradict the core purpose of higher education, which is not only to transmit skills but also to widen students' ideological perspectives. A wide variety of ideas and diverse perspectives are essential within a campus environment because they encourage and promote liberal democracy while cultivating tolerance. Research demonstrates that when like-minded people meet exclusively, they tend to drift toward extremes, whereas when disagreeing parties interact, they are able to develop productive compromises. Safe spaces also provide a pathway for limiting and silencing important and otherwise controversial positions in public discourse. While proponents argue that safe spaces protect disempowered and marginalized students, they ultimately work against those same students by confining them to narrow ideological perspectives. Based on these arguments, the conclusion that safe spaces are misplaced within college campuses is fully supported.
Works Cited
Guterl, Matthew Pratt. "On Safety and Safe Spaces." Inside Higher Ed, 29 Aug. 2016, Web. 2 Oct. 2017.
Levinovitz, Alan. "How Trigger Warnings Silence Religious Students." The Atlantic, 30 Aug. 2016, Web. 2 Oct. 2017.
Rose, Flemming. "Safe Spaces on College Campuses Are Creating Intolerant Students." The World Post, updated 12 Jun. 2017, Web. 2 Oct. 2017.
Zhang, Yue, and Kavahn Mansouri. "Point/Counterpoint: Do Safe Spaces Belong on College Campuses?" USA Today, 22 Nov. 2016, Web. 2 Oct. 2017.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.