What is a 'Safe Space'?

In a 2013 article published on 'The American Conservative', Rod Dreher shares his take on first amendment rights on college campuses. In 2013, an LSU student posts a video in response to LSU doing away with the "Free Speech Quad". The free speech quad is an area designated by LSU where organizations and students can assemble to spread their messages. LSU has recently decided that this was too restrictive and is now allowing students to assemble all across campus. The student posting the video claims that it is overwhelming to have protesters everywhere and that it was easy to avoid protesters if you did not want to be bothered. Dreher writes that the student is inconvenienced because she would have to embrace opinions that differ from hers and that freedom of speech only applies when the majority agrees with you, and if not, you're unsafe.

Dreher writes about an experience he had while in college when he shared that he was 'pro-life' and sitting among people who identified as 'pro-choice'. The people he was sitting with immediately became uncomfortable and said that they felt 'unsafe' by him being there. Dreher writes that it is unfair how he must watch what he says due to 'offending' anyone who does not agree with him. The definition of community oppression is then provided, to further explain the argument for safe spaces:

Community oppression is oppression that one experiences within a community to which they belong. Example: A lesbian attends a house of worship that preaches homosexuality is a sin.

Dreher argues that it is unfair that his personal beliefs are considered'oppressive' if they offend another group of people. He believes that it is unfair to have to filter his own personal beliefs in compliance with other groups of people. He provides the example that if a teacher identifies as Christian and does not support the LGBTQ+ community, that teacher is then an oppressor. Dreher is outraged by this notion and how far schools and establishments will go to save 'safe spaces'.

The problem with the LSU student feeling violated by the free speech on her campus is that freedom od speech in a constitutional right that is recognized everywhere in the US. LSU is a public instittution and therefore must abide by most of the similar laws as other public accomadations. Just because she personally does not want to be bothered with people protesting and petitioning does not mean they do not have the right to be there.

As far as safe spaces go, it is a little absurd to accuse people with more conservative views as being 'oppressive' and 'scary'. Just because someone personally does not believe in LGBTQ+ relationships, does not make them a villain, however, this does not grant this person the right to spread hateful speech towards members of that community. When Dreher was sitting at the lunch table with his peers, he was not being malicious by saying he is pro-life. If Dreher were to go into a rant about how he hates women and how he believes women should be controlled by the government, then yes he is violating that group of women's safe space.

A safe space is a place designed for people to congregate freely without the fear of discrimination. Safe spaces are often discussed in relation to most schools who have gay-straight alliances and Black student unions as a place for marginalized groups of people to have a place on their campus where they can be who they are unapologetically. Safe spaces have shifted in meaning to be more accommodating towards protecting groups of people and their specific beliefs. For example, an animal rights group should have a safe space where they can assemble, but they are not entitled to this space because they are not a marginalized group of people. They cannot attack anyone who goes against their beliefs, because those are strictly opinions. Safe spaces were designed to protect students who face oppression based on their identity, not to protect strongly opinionated protesters.

By using words like 'safe spaces' and 'oppression' so loosely, it takes away from the magnitude of the situation. The US Constitution protects everyone's right to express their opinion, and just because it is an unpopular one does not mean they are oppressing or intruding on your safe space. So no white lady, having protesters on your campus is not oppression. Sorry, not sorry.

Is the Media Responsible for Fake News?

In a world where the media is watching its mouth, fake news has become the latest cardinal sin. If the media reports anything that is not entirely true, then the journalists and reporters are labeled with the daunting label of 'fake news'. But surprisingly enough, the main culprits in the fake news wave are ordinary people on social media. More misinformation is spread due to people sharing new stories attached to their biased opinions than media posting false stories.

According to a recent article published by Mashable, there is a glitch in Facebook's software which allows users to tamper with media content and change the message to fit their own personal views. For example, a user can take an article with the pinned image being a political figure, change the headline and then other users will share the link without fact-checking the source of the information. Changing the integrity of a headline on social media (Facebook especially) is dangerous because a shockingly high number of people only read the headline before they repost, not even bothering to open the article. This can be damaging to the reputation of media outlets because they are being linked to information they did not even publish.

 Fake news is also generated by the general population simply sharing opinionated editorials to Facebook and referring to them as true. The restrictions that opinion pieces and credible media outlets must abide by are vastly different and must be regarded as separate sources of information. For example, an opinion blog can post anything under the sun they want, no matter how biased or exaggerated it is. Credible news sources like CNN or MSNBC have limitations as to what they can say about certain issues and are required to back up their information with facts. When these opinionated blog posts are shared to other platforms, people just see the headline and picture and don't think twice about what they are posting. These mindless posts consequently share information to millions of people who are unaware that they are receiving false information.

In a world where it is easy to blame the liberals for spreading fake news, it is, in fact, the typical American's post on Facebook that spreads more false information.

The Supreme Court + Appointments

Since its founding, the US has fought hard to defend the rights of its citizens from a tyrannical government. Through a long process, the US finally adopted the US Constitution which outlines all of the basic human rights that citizens hold. This prevents the government from interfering in certain parts of a citizen's life and keeps the government in check. In order to make sure the government maintains a healthy amount of power, the Supreme Court was instated to interpret the Constitution and make sure no rights are being violated.

The Supreme Court of the US is under the Judicial Branch of the US government. Presidents appoint these members to the court where they are serving life terms. The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was John Marshall. Under Marshall, the Supreme Court handled the Marbury v. Madison case. This case established Judicial Review, meaning the Supreme Court has the power to review an act of Congress and determine it constitutional or unconstitutional. This gave the Supreme Court more power and made the Judicial Branch more authority to check the other branches of government.

The power of the Supreme Court is vital to the protection of human rights in the US. The Supreme Court has reviewed many important cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, McCulloch v. Maryland, Korematsu v. the US, and Roe v. Wade. These cases are all debating important issues affecting the lives of individuals. Without the Supreme Court, the government could have easily taken control of these cases and abused their power. For example, the McCulloch v. Maryland case was a debate over what implied powers state governments had. Without a Supreme Court ruling, Maryland could have easily won the first trial and taken control over its citizens. A powerful court system that is willing to go against the government is key in protecting the government from corruption.

Recently, there have been issues surrounding the appointment system of Supreme Court justices. In the last presidential election, Congress was trying to prevent President Obama from making an appointment because he was about to leave the office. This violates the constitution because, at the time, President Obama was still the elected president and it is the president's responsibility to make appointments. But many Republicans were arguing that it was not fair for President Obama to make such a permanent decision if he was about to leave the office. Similar to the modern struggles of interpreting the Constitution, it is hard to live by rules that were made hundreds of years ago. In the beginning, it was fitting to have justices serve life-terms because of the decisions that were being made. It was beneficial to have the same justices setting precedents because they doing so to protect the Constitution. In recent history, Supreme Court appointments have been deduced to filling Washington with a certain political party with similar views to have strong control over the people. For example, Donald Trump was considering appointing justices that held similar views to him, especially on abortion restrictions.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and set rulings that are for the people, not for your personal motives and political views. The Supreme Court was designed to protect all and defend the Constitution. This is not a way for politicians to weaponize their ideals and force them onto the country. Each US citizen is guaranteed rights under the Constitution and it is the Supreme Court's duty to make sure those rights are protected.