Brian Cox is right, safe spaces are ruining the point of university

LSE physicist, Brain Cox, has spoken out about the establishment of ‘safe spaces’ in our universities – and rather than arguing back or moaning about how they protect us, we should all listen to him.

Following strict bans on the ability of controversial speakers to be heard at universities, Cox rightly declared that these ‘safe spaces’ (which aim to ensure a peaceful environment in which no offence is caused) is not beneficial to students.

Rather than protecting them, and creating intellectual tolerance, Cox argues that a lack of intellectual stimulation has actually caused increased intolerance to more profound views. The Physics genius stresses a shift away from safe discussion to motivated and passionate debate. Students are simply going through the motions and listening to mundane speakers that don’t excite lively argument. Student unions are currently filled with tame discussions that fail to spark meaningful and personal debates because of the naive decision to ban contentious guests from challenging and stimulating students.

It’s true, in exceptional circumstances, of course certain speakers are considered too extreme. However, like Cox, I believe the current ‘safe space’, ‘no platform’ culture we live in at university to be completely too far. The basis of learning includes trying to get to grips with distinctive views from each end of the intellectual spectrum. Without diversity and challenge, learning tends to feel rather nihilistic and colourless.

Safe spaces are supposed to protect, but ultimately they just lead to more widespread intolerance and anger. They ensure that a lack of extremity is heard, and therefore when one encounters different views, intolerance is the inevitable outcome. Cox calls for the need for debate as the basis of liberal democracy: students ought not to be confined to the bubble of a ‘safe space’, but must break free, broaden their intellectual scope and stretch their thought to reflect on touch of extremity. He believes this is necessary for students to build up an “intellectual armoury” to aid their evolution as young minds.

Universities are supposed to be places of free speech, where ideas and theories can be challenged, and improved on. The banning of speakers, no matter how extreme their views goes against the fundamental basis of academia, without allowing all thinkers to publish and speak their views we may never have heard the theory of evolution or other world-changing ideas. And academia is one area where absolute freedom of speech is vital.

Without it, Cox argues, learning becomes less about learning, and more about absorbing great swathes of information ready for regurgitation in summer exams. Students focus not on learning skills for life, but are obsessed with the requirements of exams and whether certain material is necessary for such examinations. This recent exam focussed obsession means students fail to look at the bigger picture, and fail to acquire the rhetorical and argumentative skills vital to most careers.

Rather than dissect what he says, or decide not to have him on our campuses because of his views, it’s time we chilled out, lowered our defences and listened reason – and to Brian Cox, obviously.