A Matter of Interpretation: Examining the coded meanings of "safe space" in higher education communities

• Main Author: Grimes, Catherine
• Other Authors: Communication
• Format: Others
• Published: Virginia Tech 2020
• Subjects: safe space; speech code theory; higher education; communication
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10919/99039

The term "safe space" has a long history of signifying a place of sanctuary or refuge, and of a potential site of activism, advocacy, and political action (Davis, 1999; Kenney, 2001; Harris, 2015; Crockett, 2016). In recent decades, it has been adopted by student groups and advocates for inclusion, diversity and social justice on college and university campuses, who also saw such places as providing safety, freedom, activism, and intellectual discussion (Crockett, 2016; White, 2016). But critics argued that such spaces have the potential to stifle academic freedom, intellectual growth and free speech, and act as cocoons for students (Crovitz, 2016; Will, 2016). Both advocates and critics use the term "safe space," but with different meanings. Using speech code theory, I analyze opinion-editorial essays and commentaries from five national news periodicals to examine how proponents and critics of safe spaces use the term and to explore the clash of meanings and contexts. === Master of Arts === The term safe space suggests a place of refuge and safety, where those who use it are free from harm. During the past 60 years, the term has taken on additional meaning as a potential site of activism and advocacy action as well as safety and freedom (Davis, 1999; Kenney, 2001; Harris, 2015; Crockett, 2016). Originally used by second wave feminists, Civil Rights activists and the LGBTQ movement, it more recently has been adopted by student groups and advocates for inclusion, diversity and social justice on college and university campuses. For them, safe spaces serve as places not only for safety, but for intellectual discussion (Crockett, 2016; White, 2016). Not everyone favors providing such spaces on campus. Critics argued that safe spaces have the potential to stifle free speech and interfere with students' opportunities to learn, and that such spaces can insulate students, allowing them to avoid dealing with uncomfortable ideas (Crovitz, 2016; Will, 2016). Using speech code theory, I analyzed 79 opinion-editorial essays and commentaries from five national news periodicals to examine how proponents and critics of safe spaces use the term and to explore the clash of meanings and contexts in their words.