The following post was written by Wade Craig, SFL’s North American Chair.

The recent welcome letter from the University of Chicago to its incoming freshman class is neither a significant win for liberty nor a loss. The letter, which has been covered in media outlets ranging from the New York Times to Townhall, explains that the University of Chicago does not (at an institutional level) condone trigger warnings, disinviting controversial speakers, or safe spaces. This position was taken in the name of “fostering the free exchange of ideas.” If this is what UChicago wants to do, no libertarian would be consistent in denying them their right to organize as they please; after all, they are a private university. However, I do not think this is a significant win for libertarians, as many seem to believe, though neither is it a loss.

Safe spaces and trigger warnings are one part of a broader culture war within which libertarians have no clear orientation. Safe spaces, broadly defined, are any designated area within which a certain pattern of behavior is not socially tolerated. Trigger warnings are warnings that precede material with the potential to act as a trauma trigger—stimuli that result in the recollection of traumatic experiences—which can cause severe distress or even exacerbate PTSD. Safe spaces might be thought of as expanded rules of etiquette for particular communities, and trigger warnings are akin to psychological allergy warnings. Neither is a direct violation of libertarian property rights, nor are they inherently a defense of property. Banning them governmentally would be objectionable on libertarian grounds, but so would legally enforcing them. Libertarians’ first principles are largely silent on the issue.

Another factor that makes the culture war surrounding safe spaces and trigger warnings odd is the disproportionate amount of coverage devoted to examining it. According to the National Coalition Against Censorship, 85% of college educators have not even received requests from their students for the use of trigger warnings, and of those who have, the ideological makeup of the students requesting trigger warnings was not solely leftists concerned about untoward content regarding disfavored social groups. Conservatives wanting to avoid homoerotic content, foul language, etc. were also among those requesting specific content warnings. The “coddled leftist” stereotype blamed for the rise of trigger warnings is a myth. A different kind of “political correctness” is alive and well on the right. Even disregarding the ideological bias in the popular narrative, the truth is that the trigger warning scare is overblown. When only around one in eight professors has even received a trigger warning request, is there really a significant concern?

Libertarians who celebrate UChicago’s decision seem strange, to me. These are often the same libertarians who, well aware of the lessons learned from prohibition and the drug war, decry alcohol bans on campus because the ban merely forces students to drink off campus. Heavy drinking increases in local apartments and alcohol-related emergencies go under-reported due to student fears of administrative punishment. Libertarians should see that safe spaces can be created off campus and trigger warning lists can be made easily available online. If some students can keep banks of tests from instructors’ prior classes, it will be even easier to maintain a list of trigger warnings. UChicago has not gotten rid of trigger warnings or safe spaces. It has, at most, moved them.

There are valid criticisms of trigger warnings and safe spaces, both in concept and in implementation. Trigger warnings can prompt students to approach works in particular ways when the value of consuming some works is in discovering one’s own reaction to it. Safe spaces can be implemented in public spaces, turning space that should be ideologically neutral into a de facto territory of one group. Both have been used inappropriately at times. Still, they can have helpful uses. In communities hostile to a small group’s values, a safe space can provide refuge from hostility. Warning student veterans that a video contains images of warfare and explosions can help those with PTSD. Safe spaces and trigger warnings are merely one set of tools that a community can choose to use or discard in an effort to serve their members.

Banning safe spaces takes tools away from clubs to make their meetings accord with their values. Requiring them replaces decentralized ways of reconciling unshared values with the blunt force of institutional power. Let universities specialize and compete. Some will follow UChicago, some will not, and those who serve their communities best will grow. As in other affairs, libertarians can be pluralists. UChicago’s decision is no more a libertarian win or loss than changes in any other entity’s administrative practices.

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. If you’re a student interested in presenting your perspective on this blog, email us at [email protected]. Like what you read here? You can subscribe for a weekly update on SFL’s events, leadership programs, and resources here.