Dear Dean Ellison,

I am writing to express my absolute horror at the letter sent to the class of 2020 regarding the university’s dedication to freedom of expression. While such a stance appears admirable, the language and statements contained within the letter have only proven that the university not only misunderstands the concepts of safe spaces and trigger warnings, but also demonstrates the administration’s startling lack of empathy and general disconnect from campus intellectual life.

        In your letter, you carefully laid out what exactly freedom of expression is: the right to debate, learn, and engage in difficult conversations, and not “the freedom to harass or threaten others.” You mention the intellectual discomfort that students will face when their preformed notions are challenged by our rigorous liberal arts curriculum and demand for critical thinking. Entering students should expect to have their worldviews shifted and their capacity for discourse expanded through the fundamental courses of Hum and Sosc.

        These students, however, should not expect to have their life experiences belittled by the very person who is tasked with advocating on their behalf. I am referring to your paragraph describing the university commitment against “so-called ‘trigger warnings’” and “intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.” I am choosing to believe that your assertion comes from a lack of understanding of these two concepts, both of which you have characterized incorrectly.

Trigger warnings are seldom deployed without severe reasoning. For example, I was in an English class last year that was reading The Autobiography of Red. Having recently reread it, I emailed my instructor asking if she would inform the class that the book described incestual sexual abuse – something not at all expected from a lyric based on a very short Greek myth. She immediately responded in the positive, and at the end of the next class she told us to take care with the reading, as there were depictions of sexual abuse and incest.

That’s it.

This experience restored my faith in the instructors at this university – their empathy, their care for the wellbeing of their students, and the respect they have for the integrity of their pupils. Trigger warnings are not about oversensitivity – they are about empathy, and recognizing the varied experiences of all students at this university, “people of all backgrounds.” Safe spaces, on the other hand, have nothing to do with coddling students from diverse opinions. You used the term “intellectual safe spaces” in your letter, which is quite different from the “safe spaces” unjustly speared by The Atlantic and The Chronicle of Higher Education. The University of Chicago, as previously mentioned, is not an intellectual safe space. A student raised to deny evolution would have those claims refuted in Core Bio, an experience that would undoubtedly be distressing. That is an example of an intellectual challenge, whereas “safe spaces” seek to provide support to at-risk populations with the university.

Despite your declaration against them, the university does provide these safe spaces. The Center for Identity and Inclusion works with LGBTQ+ and minority students to provide spaces free of discrimination, as well as mentorship, and a support structure to report abuse. The newly-established Center for College Student Success provides activities for underprivileged, undocumented, and low-income students – those who might otherwise slip through the cracks of such an elitist institution. None of these are founded with the intend to shield students from difficulties. Instead, they seek to equip underprivileged students with the tools and support to succeed at the same level as the majority of the campus population.

With this in mind, your letter most importantly displays an utter lack of engagement with the current students, faculty, and staff at the university. You condemn programs willfully provided and deeply loved by the school, as well as telling trauma survivors that the university does not care about them – a message many have received again and again as Title IX violations recur at our institution.

Dean Ellison, I am writing this not out of hatred, but in fierce defense of the school that has taught me so much. The class of 2020 does not deserve to believe that their diversity of experience, backgrounds, or personal struggles will be condemned upon stepping foot on our campus. In sending this note railing against trigger warnings and safe spaces, you have done a disservice to the faculty who should be trusted to empathize with the experiences of their young students; the staff who strive to create an inclusive and safe environment for all on campus; and the students who eagerly await welcoming the class of 2020 into a stimulating intellectual environment based upon pillars of “civility and mutual respect.”

I hope that you will reconsider the university’s official stance on safe spaces and trigger warnings, as they are not at all in conflict with a commitment to freedom of expression. Your paragraph vilifying them only served as posturing the greater higher education administrative community, and hurt the members of our campus community who trusted you to speak on our behalf.

Sincerely,

Jasmine Mithani

Class of 2017