Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

No-media safe-spaces are self-defeating

“Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go!”

These were the words that could be heard chanted repeatedly by a human shield of students at Missouri State University last week, as they blocked media access to the scene of resignation of the University President, Tim Wolfe. On November 9th Wolfe made his resignation speech under the watchful eyes of student protestors angry at Wolfe’s apparent ambivalence towards serious and ongoing episodes of racial hatred involving Missouri State students, as well as what many students felt was a campus-wide atmosphere of intolerance and racism. Things came to a head when graduate student Jonathon Butler was joined four days into his hunger strike by a largely black contingent of the Missouri State football team; by day eight Wolfe capitulated and protestors rejoiced.

The ‘no-media safe-space’ created by students at Missouri State is a novel, and rather confusing, thing. Students erred frustration at the way the media reports racial issues in America and emphasised their right to a safe space. Infuriating though the mainstream media can be when reporting on race-relations, and crucial though it is for students who feel victimised to be able to voice their opinions with confidence, there is an undeniable degree of irony to this story.

Recent student protestors at Missouri, Missipipi, and Colombia have all taken inspiration and strength from one another, as well as from the highly publicised Black Lives Matter campaign. A hunger strike is, at its core, an attention seeking device. Everything about the behaviour and actions of these students was designed to shame University administration into addressing their grievances; and it worked. Fear of public outcry, and not a sudden change of heart and sincere concern for the health and safety of his students on the part of Tim Wolfe, is what forced the University to react.

Some definitions are needed here. A safe space is defined by Advocates for Youth as “A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome or unsafe….a place where the rules…strongly encourage everyone to agree with others”. A protest is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something”. A protest, by nature, necessitates a degree of conflict. Safe spaces are conflict free-zones and therefore safe spaces and protests must be mutually exclusive. To protest is a democratic right, but we do not have the right to expect our protest to come at no personal cost; protests are designed to upset and inconvenience their targets and a protestor should therefore not be surprised if their action forces them to encounter conflicting opinions and people who question their position. The students of Missouri have co-opted the concept of a safe space; protesting is a public demonstration of dissent and there is nothing ‘safe’ about it.

If you care enough about a cause to attend a protest in its name, you ought to be able – you ought to want to – talk to reporters and argue your case. If, as the protestors at Missouri argued, you feel that the media will “just get the headline wrong anyway”, then it is understandable to want to simply block the media out. But to do so would be to deny the critical role media outlets and TV cameras have in bringing about social change. In the twenty-first century we have the privilege of being able to take journalism into our own hands; if you don’t like the way someone is reporting something you can go online and tell your side of the story; if you don’t like the media, you can be the media. The students of Missouri may have successfully kept journalists off university property – something they are within their rights to do – but they have not kept the story out of the headlines. I was angered, though not surprised, by Fox News’ coverage of events at Missouri State and feel for the students who do not want to be the target of antagonistic news anchors and online trolls, but the solution cannot be to ban the media outright.

Rather than employ no-media safe-spaces we must change the media from within so that protestors can relish the opportunity to practice their freedom of speech and defend what it is they feel so strongly about, rather than shy away from it. A no-media safe-space may in some circumstances be a good idea, but it seems to me that in most cases no-media safe-spaces undermine freedom of speech and undermine the very causes that those who enforce them believe in.

Check out our other content

Most Popular Articles