Verbal Movement:

Clark University is a private liberal arts college located in Worcester, Massachusetts that advocates diversity, equality and inclusion. In recent events, the college has initiated social movements in hope of executing these morals amongst students. On August 27, 2016, Sheree Marlowe, the new chief diversity officer at Clark, gave a two hour lecture to incoming students about micro aggressions, safe spaces and trigger warnings.

During the presentation, a student asked, “When I, as a white female, listen to music that uses the N word, and I’m in the car, or especially when I’m with all white friends, is it okay to sing along?” Marlowe gave a succinct and incontrovertible response of “No.”

Marlowe also discussed environmental aggressions, giving the example of walking into a chemistry building and only seeing pictures of white male scientists on the wall. She concluded that if you are a female, or don’t identify as a white male, the environment palpably shows that you are not included nor represented.

The topic of micro invalidation was brought up, as well, which is when a comment is said that suggest that race plays a role in life’s outcomes. The example given by Marlowe was the expression, “everyone can succeed in society if they work hard enough,” and how it implies micro invalidation.

While advocating to new students at Clark University, Ms.Marlowe also reminded everyone to no longer say “you guys,” which oppresses females and can cause one to be a micro aggressor.

Sheree Marlowe’s speech ultimately argued that racism is a system in which a dominant race benefits from the oppression of others.

Physical Movement:

Along with Marlowe’s presentation and advocacy for safe spaces on campus, RDC (Reclaim Dana Commons) and CGRAS (minority students) have been petitioning for physical safe spaces for minority students at the university.

On November 23, 2016 RDC and CGRAS students submitted a letter to Clark University Provost, David Baire, asking for additional space in the Dana Commons for religious minorities and the LGBTQ community. Renovations to the McCan Resource Room (MMR), a space for students of color, was also requested.

In the letter, the students said that the increased interest in the MMR made them weary and worried that they were expected to share the space with other students who had not previously shared its use. The students who identified themselves based on their religious and/or gender/sexuality believed it to be appropriate to have separate spaces of their own.

As a result, CGRAS have requested for more space so that their programs will have a “safe space,” believing that the separation will enhance diversity and inclusion in the university’s social programming.

“This proposal provides a means by which diverse student continuances can have space to address their unique identity and programmatic needs and yet remain under one roof- the epitome of diversity and inclusion,” said Stephen Richardson, a Clark University Senior who has aided the movement for space for students of color.

Richardson also stated that there was a lack of safe space on campus and that having a space would counteract student and faculty micro-aggressions, allowing students of color to feel comfortable to have a place to have sensitive talks about race.

Over 300 Students have signed the petition asking for more physical space for students of color. The petition can be found and signed at change.org, titled “Give Students of Color and CGRAS a Physical Space on Campus.”

Ethical Systems:

A utility-based ethical system takes into account the potential consequences of an action and the impact of those affected by it. In this system, something is considered ethical if it achieves the greatest good for the greatest number of people, even if it is potentially detrimental for a small number. From a utility-based point of view, a safe space for Clark University (both verbal and tangible) is unethical. This is because ALANA students, or minority students, make up under 20% of the school’s enrollment. Stephen Richardson, the Clark University Senior that partakes in the movement for space for students of color, even acknowledged that the student of color control is too small to accommodate and is neglected.

Research also proves that safe spaces lead to the decline of alumni donations, particularly at small, liberal arts universities. This is because those who stop donating or decrease their amount of donations believe that current students are too concerned with racial and identity politics. Additionally, they believe that students have derided historic heroes and traditions by judging them based off of contemporary standards rather than the context of their period. Because minority students make up the smaller percentage and alumni contributions affect the school as a whole, a utility-based system would deem a safe space for Clark University as unethical and most likely not support verbal safe spaces or the increase in physical safe space rooms.

In a rule-based system, ethics are focused on the act itself rather than the potential consequences; something is ethical when it follows rules. Because the rule-based system believes in the evolution of ethics and responds to cultural climate, this system would deem a safe space for Clark University as ethical. However, the gray area lies in verbal safe spaces. From a rule-based ethical system point of view, a verbal safe space could be both ethical and nonethical. This is because this system follows the rules, but the rules of speech can be equivocal and subjective; a word’s meaning can change because it is contingent on the context. A common example given by the rule-based system in regards to the law is that murder is acceptable if it is self defense. However, this is difficult because the proof of self defense can be wrong at times; the judgement of this act is overall dependent the persuasion of the argument. Similarly, the context of a word is subjective to each individual. But because the rule-based ethical system deems murder in self defense as generally ethical, I can conclude that, although a verbal safe space is gray, it leans towards being ethical more so than being unethical.

As for RDC and CGRAS online petition and movement for a physical safe space, a rule-based ethical opinion would deem this as ethical. This is because a rule-based system creates rules based on the public interest. Because the students of color at Clark University have grabbed the attention of administrators and acclaimed newspapers, such as The New York Times, it has become their interest as the public to create a physical safe space that congregates the marginalized and nurtures the idea of cultural awareness.

A rights-based ethical system believes that everyone has certain rights that cannot be taken away, except under certain circumstances. Taking a rights-based approach would mean that one can deem verbal safe spaces as unethical. This type of safe space would be considered unethical because it each person’s right to have the freedom of speech; the first amendment cannot be rescinded. Likewise, it also benefits those who are pro safe spaces because they have the right to fight for what they believe is true and just.

On the contrary, although a verbal safe space would be considered unethical, a physical safe space would most likely be considered ethical from a rights-based point of view. This is because RDC and CGRAS are allowed to argue for separate spaces for minorities if they feel trivialized in the presence of a different majority group.

Because most ethical systems often overlap, I would take both a rights-based and a rule-based approach to safe spaces at Clark University. In regards to a verbal safe space, I believe that the rights-based ethical system is the most pragmatic. Regardless of political correctness, the first amendment implements the freedom of speech. In this case, both parties that are pro or anti safe spaces benefit by being able to fight for what they believe is most just, even though there is extreme dichotomy between the two. Additionally, the right to the freedom of speech exposes us to new opinions and ideas, even if it is harmful, which is essential for human growth and development; to protect one’s beliefs is equally as important as confutation.

As for the request for a physical safe space, I believe that a rights-based and a rule-based system would be the most ethical approach. In a rights-based ethical system, each person has rights that cannot be revoked. If a marginalized group feels that they are not socially tantamount to the majority, they therefore have the right to segregate themselves if they deem it as safer. Additionally, a rule-based approach to a physical safe space is ideal because it alters in response to cultural climate; rules are created based on what the public deems as necessary and right. If a group, in this case a minority, works to receive enough attention, it is worth considering and listening rather than being intransigent to potential progression.

Cited Sources:

https://worcestermag.com/2015/04/30/petition-calls-for-space-at-clark-university-for-people-of-color/33092

https://www.change.org/p/provost-davis-baird-president-david-angel-give-physical-space-to-minority-students-at-clark-university-rdc-and-cgras-final-letter

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/college-protests-alumni-donations.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/us/campuses-cautiously-train-freshmen-against-subtle-insults.html

http://www.cityethics.org/node/516