Kyle Park
Safe Spaces in Disagreement
March 5th, 2025
This quarter, I’m taking a philosophy seminar called “Democracy and Disagreement” (PHIL 3)––a platform that invites diverse perspectives on topics from college admissions, free speech, DEI, and foreign policy. The goal of this class is to encourage constructive disagreement and civic discourse, which are essential pillars of democracy. Too often, we see shouting matches peppered with personal attacks or emotional tangents that not only turn conversations unproductive but neglect the minimum standard of respect. In this sense, I like to think that the seminar class is a safe space but a playground for ideological discomfort. It’s a breath of fresh air to see speakers freely debate under this framework of constructive disagreement.
Just this past week, the class hosted guest speakers Emmanuel Saez and Larry Summers to discuss the wealth tax. Summers took the “conservative stance” in the conversation, disagreeing with a wealth tax on Americans with more than $50 million and $1 billion in assets. Saez started with the mic, but before Summers could even speak, climate activists rushed the stage. They chanted insults, threw fake money into the crowd, and held up banners reading “Larry Summers your time is up” and “tax the rich.” Turns out, these protestors were not actual Stanford students but members of an outside climate organization.
Now, the content of the wealth tax debate is beyond the scope of this post. I’ll probably save that for another time. This incident, however, did remind me of several other disruptions we’ve recently seen on campuses across the country: conversations that were originally organized to promote civil, respectful, productive dialogue turning into a yelling contest where volume trumps reasoning.
Maintaining safe spaces is important. It’s important that students are not subject to any sort of harassment or abuse and can always feel physically safe on campus. But again, I think this class tries to show that it is not necessary (and largely harmful) to believe that one must always feel ideologically safe on campus. People will say things that you disagree with and challenge your thinking process. People will say things that make you feel emotionally uncomfortable. People will say things that you simply don’t like. And that’s the whole point of these seminars. When you’re faced with an opposing argument, the go-to response shouldn’t be to shut them off because it simply makes you feel bad. Rather constructive disagreement would mean revisiting your line of thinking, critically poking holes in your arguments, and identifying where you can fill the gaps with robust reasoning. Instead of chanting, adopting this mindset may have worked in favor of the protestors.
I understand there are more nuances to consider when it comes to boundaries for free speech and hate speech. But this was the first time something of this nature happened in class and thought I’d leave some food for thought.