This statement by the University is willfully ignorant. The University provides an officially sanctioned LGBTQ Safe Space (https://lgbtq.uchicago.edu/page/safe-space). Clearly the University isn't ensuring that people who think gay people are evil are also represented in those safe spaces. Furthermore, some ideas are clearly off limits. The University is not going to allow and promote legitimate arguments about whether the Holocaust was justified, or whether we should return to slavery and colonialism.
The point of contention is and always has been which spaces, why, and for what reasons. The University is clearly not ignorant of the nuances of this debate, and if it wanted to commit itself to rigorous debate, it could do so while respecting that there is a valid rigorous debate to be had about this policy.
As someone who sat through four years of classes at The University of Chicago, most of which were liberal arts classes, they would most definitely allow you to argue about the justification of the Holocaust, whether we should return to slavery, and the merits or lack thereof of colonialism. If you can't discuss those things in a class but must merely passively listen as we all agree about why those things are clearly horrible, or even worse just not talk about them because they are so horrible, then you will fail to have confronted those ideas and will have learned nothing.
The existence of an LGBTQ group and their safe spaces is not inconsistent with allowing students to explore the free expression of ideas in the classroom. As the university states, it is not going to tolerate harassment, and there can be a fuzzy line at the extremes. But they are definitely going to protect your right to respectfully state unpopular opinions. Ideas are not off limits; that is the whole point.
>Furthermore, some ideas are clearly off limits. The University is not going to allow and promote legitimate arguments about whether the Holocaust was justified, or whether we should return to slavery and colonialism.
Why are certain topics off limits? If someone wants to give a talk about why they believe the Holocaust is justified they should be free to do so, just as I am free to ignore it or go argue he's wrong.
Contingent on the fact that: "Butz has made clear that his opinions are his own and at no time has he discussed those views in class or made them part of his class curriculum." If he were to represent his opinions as the views of the University, or in the classroom, they would remove him.
To me, that seems not only consistent with the principle of a "safe space," but the definition of it.
If someone denies the holocaust and promotes slavery, don't they have the right to express their views? It's a very slippery slope when you let someone (you? me?) decide what speech is too dangerous to hear. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is dangerous, but letting some whacko spout about why slavery is good is entirely different.
Again, that's counterfactual. Currently, if a professor tried to seriously discuss such views, they would be promptly let go. The point of contention is not whether "safe spaces" should exist - they exist in spades already, and the University supports them. The debate is what form they should take.
The point of contention is and always has been which spaces, why, and for what reasons. The University is clearly not ignorant of the nuances of this debate, and if it wanted to commit itself to rigorous debate, it could do so while respecting that there is a valid rigorous debate to be had about this policy.