Here’s a good link to the University of Chicago story… with a link to the original letter. Here’s an excellent response:
Those lists of “safe space” are incredible. As a minority, foreigner, female, or any other disadvantaged (such as severe myopia? Short?), I prefer people to speak their mind to me to my face and not behind closed doors at their dinner table. People shouldn’t edit their thoughts and words for being concerned with being “politically correct”, “up-to-date”, or “open-minded”. When there’s disagreement, that’s when we need meaningful discussion or debate. To those demanding “safe space”, if you truly believe your ideology is right (and that “others” may do great damage), then, it’s almost your responsibility to start or join the discussion isn’t it? Why hide?
I hate speech suppression, but I hate ignorant bloviating just as much. Do speak… if you have the creds. For instance, I don’t have the medical or scientific creds to comment on the Jenner affair… so, I don’t. Do note that most of those commenting on it also lack such creds (what does that tell you about Dreher, Trenham, Reardon, Whiteford, et al?). Therefore, what weight should you give such vacuous commentary? I’d say that such talk is mere hot air; no decent person should attend to it, nor should you give attention to the asshats spouting it. That’s not suppression of speech… that’s called discernment… there’s a difference. To forbid Josiah Trenham to speak (so long as he has his bishop’s specific OK on a particular instance) is beyond the pale. To demand his creds to speak on this or that is kosher (indeed, one should always demand such). Have a care… there be phonies out there; many are “respectable” or clergy. Bite the coin… there be vile counterfeits in circulation.