“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.” Jay Ellison, dean of students of the University of Chicago undergraduate college, wrote this in a letter to incoming first years.

The writing of this statement was met with simultaneous outrage and praise by different peoples, many seeing it as a re-affirmation of the university's pro-free speech stance while others believe it to be an unnecessary move that further disenfranchises minorities and trauma victims. However, in my opinion, neither party agree on what the terminology over which they are arguing means.

Should the university promote organizations which offer students, especially students who are members of historically oppressed or disadvantaged minorities, a safe space where they can go and be free of judgment? Absolutely. Should the university promote spaces where students can go to avoid hearing opposing opinions to their own and instead remain in an intellectual echo chamber? Absolutely not.

I believe that many of the individuals decrying the letter think that the university is speaking out against the former while I believe that it thinks that it is speaking out against the latter.

The same goes for trigger warnings. I don’t believe that, in writing the letter, Ellison meant to put victims of trauma in a position where they would be forced to relive any sort of physical or emotional pain. When he referred to trigger warnings, I don’t believe he meant that students who are survivors of sexual assault should be forced to read some of the rape scenes which are present in books taught in the core curriculum. Instead, I believe that he was referring to warnings about intellectual viewpoints which may cause a liberal student to avoid a class on conservatism, or otherwise avoid engaging in intellectual ideas which are contrary to those they already hold.

Also, much of the focus has been on the safe spaces and trigger warnings, ignoring the discussion of speech interruptions. There were multiple instances last year wherein students hijacked events and didn’t allow the guest to finish their speech. Ellison correctly points out that this is an affront to free discourse, and I believe that he is right to speak out against this within the letter. Even if students have legitimate issues with the speaker, they are free to either not attend or protest in a manner which allows the event to continue – neither of which Ellison speaks against.

Many have pointed out that UChicago is being slightly hypocritical with this letter, pointing out that they have refused to meet with student protestors who hold issue with the wage it pays it workers and its displacement of local communities, among other issues. This is certainly valid, and the administration has been quite poor about hearing out the complaints of its students. However, that does not by any means invalidate the contents of this letter. They certainly should “practice what they preach,” and hopefully students can use the contents of this letter against the administration to coerce them into meeting.

I do believe Ellison was well intentioned in writing the letter, but was too loose with the wording of it. The phrasing deliberately uses words which have been in the public eye for the past few years, words which carry different meanings to different individuals. By phrasing a statement that is inherently about free discourse (something that I hope we can all agree is a good thing) in this manner, he invited protest about something that shouldn’t be all that controversial. Before we can really engage in this sort of discourse and come to a mutually agreeable conclusion we must first try to understand the definitions each side is using.