College administrations have co-opted progressive rhetoric about “safe spaces” and offensive speech to silence student protests.
Ohio State University has faced sit-ins and protests from a coalition of student activists unsatisfied with a lack of accountability and dialogue with the administration, according to The Lantern, the student newspaper at OSU.
To bring an end to those disruptions, the administration has claimed student actions have “scared” university workers.
In a video of the sit-in confrontation at Bricker Hall, a university building, administrative messengers informed students they were violating the student code of conduct and faced arrest and expulsion.
“The employees who work past five o’clock left early this evening. Do you know why? Because they were scared you were going to do something,” the messenger said.
The administration, above all else, cited safety for its actions, not a violation of the student code of conduct.
“The people in this building have a right to a safe environment, and have a right to an environment where their jobs won’t be interrupted,” he said.
As this writer previously wrote, “The revolt against speech has laid the groundwork to reform universities into echo chambers of illiberalism that could restrict the protests students value as tools of change.”
At Ohio State, that has come to pass as the administration realized the argument could be turned against students.
Nor is it the first time student protesters have undermined themselves. “Speech codes implemented in the late 1980s and early 90s with the intention of protecting black students were ultimately used to charge and punish more black students than white students,” Conor Friedersdorf wrote for The Atlantic.
Universities have a long history of restricting student expression on the basis of public safety, but OSU administration has updated the justification for millennials. They specifically cited “the rush” students made upon entering the building and chanting that scared university workers.
It seems that they resented students for giving the administration demands, inferring a lack of respect.
“[OSU President] Dr. Drake has said he will never receive demands. And he will not negotiate with you,” messenger one said.
“Who did it scare? The police officers with guns?” one student asked.
“I’m not going to answer that question,” the messenger said. “Are you telling me that we need to draw guns to protect ourselves?”
The university building is “not open to disruptive people,” he continued.
Progressive thought that has pushed for “safe spaces” and a campus that avoids offense at all costs has led to intellectual cannibalism. Students laid the foundation to disregard the liberal tradition of open inquiry. Now, they have to face an administration that’s embraced an ugly shade of authoritarianism to squelch criticism.
“The methods employed by this group were outside the scope of permitted practices,” the university declared in a statement. “Our Ohio State community enjoys incredible privileges, and dialogue must be conducted in a constructive way.”
That community, however, continues to narrow the definition of “constructive” dialogue to limit the constitutional rights of its students. Nor is it alone; scores of universities across the United States have overstepped speech protections and restricted open academic inquiry. Given that Ohio State succeeded in dispersing students from Bricker Hall, student expression is sure to become the target of more “safe spaces” rhetoric from the administration.
