Unsafe Space: The glaring intolerance of Stanford activists

Amy Shen
Alliance Defending Freedom

  • Two Stanford Review staff members attended a meeting of Students for the Liberation of All People, a prison divestment advocacy group and were subsequently thrown out Wednesday.
  • A journalist for a left-wing activist publication was not expelled from the meeting, which was advertised as being open to anyone who was interested.
  • We don’t listen. We try to firebomb right-wing rhetoric at Stanford students rather than taking a more nuanced position. We are conservative crybabies.

    Stanford’s more vocal Review-haters don’t hesitate to hurl abuse in our direction whenever we register an opinion on literally anything—from ethnic theme dorms, to a humanities core, to the Paris Climate Accords. In their eyes, we are one-sided and exclude every viewpoint that could possibly disagree with ours.

    "This is not a safe space for you."   

    So what happened when two Review members arrived at an open meeting on prison divestment, to listen and learn and contribute our own perspectives?

    We were thrown out.

    Last week, a group called Students for the Liberation of All People (SLAP) sent an email to campus mailing lists with the subject line “Call to Action! Stanford continues to support mass incarceration.” SLAP’s letter called for the managers of Stanford’s endowment to stop investing in private prisons, companies that invest in private prisons, or companies that provide services to or benefit from the labor of private prisons.

    Private prisons are nationally controversial. They appear in newspapers almost daily. Their role in perpetuating mass incarceration, as well as the lack of evidence that they are cheaper than governmental prisons, have earned them many critics – from the left and the right. They are as close to a textbook open political issue as can exist.

    I was curious to learn more about the issue. So on Wednesday, I walked into a SLAP meeting at the Nitery with a fellow editor. We sat down and prepared to listen.

    This didn’t last for long. Before long, someone in the room recognized my fellow editor as a member of the Review and told him to leave the room.

    He explained that he was there out of curiosity. Two nights before, the Review had heatedly discussed private prisons. Editors and writers were deeply conflicted on whether SLAP and SU Prison Divest's missions were worthwhile. Many Review members argued against the prison industrial complex and agreed with the divestment movement. On the economic and symbolic value of divestment, the debate had ended, as many Review conversations end, with no clear verdict.

    “This is not a safe space for you,” one leader unambiguously replied.

    As soon as he left the room, the leaders went on to discuss how inclusive the group would be. If any person in the room disagreed with a proposed group decision, the decision would be immediately vetoed.

    But apparently, if you dared to write for a newspaper advocating for such horrifying things as mandatory study of Plato, you weren’t worthy of inclusion.

    After my fellow editor was expelled, I decided to stay in the room. Since I had no plans to speak in the meeting or to publish anything negative about the organization, I assumed that my presence would be tolerated.

    Not so. After my fellow editor left, leaders asked me if I was a journalist. I avoided the question by responding that I study computer science (which is true). Unsatisfied, they proceeded to Google my name. As soon as they saw my name as an editor on the Stanford Review website, a chorus of voices demanded that I leave the meeting.

    Though the meeting was fairly secret, it was not restricted to members of the organization. The email had stated the meeting was open to anyone interested in joining. And we were not kicked out for being journalists per se. Another student who explained that she wrote for STATIC, a left-wing activist publication, was welcomed into the meeting with approving nods.

    Instead, we were expelled because of our beliefs.

    Like everyone else in the room, I believe in spaces where anyone—regardless of race, gender, or political affiliations—should feel safe to express their views. And I respect the organization’s right to ask disrespectful or malicious members to leave a meeting.

    But this was not a community center or peer counseling session where participants deserve to be affirmed; this was a political meeting designed to organize against the university. Even though the meeting was not publicized, alternative viewpoints should not have been silenced.

    And despite being members of the Review, my fellow editor and I have never published anything negative about campus activist movements. In fact, I’ve written positive reviews of activist events. We don’t even identify as “conservative.”

    Students for the Liberation of All People’s characterization of a “safe space” was laughably exclusive. It’s clear that their safe space tolerates only those who would not think about challenging the group norm.

    If activist groups such as SLAP want to truly be “inclusive”and gain widespread support for the causes they care about, they should appeal to politically moderate or apathetic students and avoid alienating those on the other side. Campus activists tend to espouse causes—such as promoting racial equality, ending mass incarceration, and opposing fossil fuels—that naturally evoke sympathy in Stanford students. However, listening only to other radical students who completely agree will only alienate moderates and provoke defensive responses from conservatives.

    In my three and a half years at Stanford as a female student of color, this was by far the least safe I have felt in a room. I walked into the meeting hoping to gain a greater understanding and appreciation for activist groups, and walked out determined to publish this article.

    This article was originally published in The Stanford Review, a conservative student newspaper affiliated with the Leadership Institute's Campus Leadership Program. Its articles are republished here with permission.

    Follow The Stanford Review on Twitter: @StanfordReview





    Amy Shen

    Alliance Defending Freedom

    Alliance Defending Freedom
    Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.
    More By Alliance Defending Freedom

    10 Articles by Alliance Defending Freedom

    • How students can help advance freedom on their campuses

      The first line of defense against these violations of constitutional principles is the student body...

      Casey Mattox Oct 10, 2017 - 10:35 AM EDT
    • How does your state measure up on student free speech?

      Universities are regulating what students may say, when and where they can say it, and even who will speak for them.

      Casey Mattox Sep 15, 2017 - 2:18 PM EDT
    • Lumberjacks in Northern Arizona sure are touchy these days

      "The college campus is a giant unsafe space for independent thinkers[.]"

      James Gottry May 08, 2017 - 10:29 AM EDT
    • UMD prez: Trump wants to 'make America white and Christian again'

      UMD’s president is doubling down on his post-election anti-Trump rhetoric, but says students should wait until Trump assumes office to protest his policies.

      Tyler Arnold Nov 21, 2016 - 2:51 PM EDT
    • Students react to SCOTUS gay marriage ruling

      Student advocates on the stairs of the Supreme Court responded to today’s close 5-4 decision which made same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states.

      Mariana Barillas Jun 26, 2015 - 3:58 PM EDT
    • Penn State frat suspended after cops uncover Facebook page of passed out, nude girls at parties

      One of the fraternity’s Facebook pages, called “Covert Business Operations,” had already been taken down after a female found a topless photo of herself on the page and threatened to take action. The second private page, “2.0,” was then created and remained open and active throughout the police investigation with almost 150 members.

      Kaitlyn Schallhorn Mar 19, 2015 - 12:15 PM EDT
    • VIDEO: University removes wrecking ball sculpture after students ride it naked like Miley Cyrus

      Hundreds of students protested at Michigan’s Grand Valley State University on Tuesday night after administrators removed a swinging sculpture that resembles a wrecking ball.

      Josiah Ryan Sep 18, 2013 - 9:59 AM EDT
    • UCLA student government looks to ban term ‘illegal immigrant’

      The undergraduate student government at the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday calling for the end of the use of the phrase “illegal immigrant,” saying it violates human rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

      Katherine Timpf Sep 02, 2013 - 2:35 PM EDT
    • FL Professor Wants Communist Revolution, Says Occupy "Not Radical Enough"



      A Florida professor has been captured on film advocating for a communist revolution and lamenting that the Occupy movement is not radical enough.

      Jamil Khader, an English professor at Stetson University, told his students that communism and a stronger state are needed to thwart "predatory capitalism." In a lecture titled "Is Lenin Good for the Occupy Wall Street Movement?", Khader explained that such a revolution would not start on its own:

      "If Lenin is to be repeated--or the idea of communism as I explained it before--then the national liberation movements in the global south should retroactively be considered one of those causal nodes around which a revolutionary act is formed today...There can be no waiting for the right moment of a revolution to mature on its own and explode. But under certain conditions, it is legitimate--even advisable--to catalyze and force the revolution to come into existence."

      He went on to attack the free enterprise system, stating that the role of the post-colonial state is to protect its subjects from capitalism.

      "If you let it be like that," he said. "capitalism and corporations are simply going to extort more juice from these areas--leaving nothing basically there. The only way to roll it back is to have a stronger state...a dictatorship of the proletariat if it ever happens."

      Khader did not limit his broadsides to capitalism. He periodically took shots at conservative commentator Glenn Beck throughout the discussion, mocking Beck as "insane" and his dire warnings as "sensational rhetoric."

      This is not the first time that Khader, a Palestinian Arab, has dabbled in controversy. He is notoriously anti-Israel, and has publicly accused that republic of apartheid and genocide. When Stetson's Hillel group invited IDF troops to campus for the purpose of teaching students traditional Israeli song and dance, Khader objected--even going so far as to send a bad-tempered letter to the students involved. He has also signed off on boycotts of Israeli businesses.

      Nicolas Tomboulides Dec 03, 2012 - 3:27 PM EDT
    • UPenn offers new queer bioethics course

      The University of Pennsylvania has introduced “Queer Bioethics” as an academic discipline under the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy in the Perelman School of Medicine.

      The program was created by Lance Wahlert an associate in the Master of Bioethics Program, and Autumn Fiester, director of graduate studies in the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy.

      The two teamed up in 2010 to create a queer bioethics course and have diligently worked to expand the program.  According to the Daily Pennsylvanian (DP), the project has more than 300 scholars from 25 countries with a journal dedicated to the subject in the works.

      Wahlert and Fiester plan to integrate more “queer content” into preexisting bioethics courses at Penn.

      An example of a few of the issues listed on the website site which the project will focus on include “recognition of LGBT patient surrogates,” “blood donation standards for same-sex sexually active individuals,” “the dilemmas of gay youth studies,” and “hetero-biased sex education.”

      “The test of whether queer bioethics is sustained and whether it succeeds will not be the popping up of literal departments,” Fiester told the DP. “It will be the proliferation of deep and profound scholarship and work.”

      University of Pennsylvania administrators did not respond to requests for comment to LI’s Campus Reform.

      Source: The Daily Pennsylvanian.

      Timothy Dionisopoulos Nov 13, 2012 - 5:02 PM EDT