有时人们想要一个远离身份侮辱的地方。但有时人们想要一个地方，他们可以自由地谈论想法，而不用担心被宣布为冒犯。对这两种地方都抱有希望是合理的。松散地说，两者都可以被称为“安全空间”。但问题随即出现:这两种安全空间通常(并不总是)有不同的用途。

Let’s call the first kind of place a “safe-beingspace.” This is where one can exist without risk of feeling demeaned. The second kind can be called a “safe-talking空间，在这里人们可以表达想法而不受指责。

These notions are easily mixed up, because the context that originally brought the phrase “safe space” into popular discourse is the psychotherapist’s room, which is a safe space inbothsenses. A good therapist allows you to articulate thoughts you would hesitate to say to your best friend—from fears to fantasies—and this safe-talking space makes you confident that words won’t ruin the therapeutic relationship. At the same time, the therapist’s commitment to withholding judgment, advice, and personal moral views let’s you feel safe in your own skin color, sexual orientation, religious faith, etc. Therapy is also safe-being space.

But there is no guarantee that this happy coincidence of kinds of safe space can always be achieved—or should be. An example topic illustrates my point.

When is it acceptable to articulate the view that same-sex parenting might cause social or psychological difficulties for children (in comparison with those that arise for children of straight couples)? That’s not my view. But when may it be expressed? Certainly, a child of a same-sex couple shouldn’t have to hear such a suggestion on a regular basis. Also, the view in question probably isn’t true; in fact, children of same-sex parents tend todo better. From these considerations, we might leap to the conclusion that it’sneverokay to articulate such a view.

但这个结论有些草率。即使这个观点是错误的，正如我所认为的，它也值得通过实证社会和心理学研究进行调查。假设我们是一名研究人员，设计了一项关于不同父母环境对孩子影响的纵向研究，假设我们研究小组的一名成员在同性父母的陪伴下长大。Would it be wrong inthiscontext to discuss possible downstream difficulties that might emerge from such a family set-up? Probably not.

The point is that the research group context is one in which one should feel safe floating ideas without fear of being chastised for having said something offensive.Especially ifnegative views about the psychological effects of same-sex parents are wrong, one needs a safe-talking space to be able to hash them out well enough toput them to the test. That’s why the research group should be a safe-talking space.

Many other topics dissociate the two kinds of safe space. It’s important to look this fact squarely in the face. Difficult questions play on people’s minds, whether they admit it or not. “Is the Koran misogynistic, or is it Islamophobic even to suggest this?” “Is affirmative action unfair, or is it racist even to suggest this?” “Should there be men’s or women’s support groups that allow only cismen or ciswomen, or is that very idea transphobic?” The overarching question is: “What should be acceptable to articulate regarding such topics?” And I think this overarching question can’t be addressedwell没有安全空间和安全谈话空间的区别。

This present discussion might seem to resemblerecent controversyover “safe spaces” versus “free speech” on college campuses, in particular at Missouri, Yale, and Claremont McKenna. But from my perspective, that entire debate is ill formed.Free speechnorms are legal restrictions on government’s ability to censor or sanction the speech of private citizens or the press generally. Those norms areat a different levelfrom that of the university, at which more structured speech norms also can and do make perfect sense, as thissatire清楚地显示。简单地说，认为第一修正案排除了在社交俱乐部中有言论规范是一种混淆。

So instead of debating “free speech” versus “safe spaces”—a debate that confuses levels of speech norms—more local institutions should debatewhich kindof safe space, in any given context, is more important to have, if it’s not feasible to have both.

It’s no wonder that tensions emerged at universities, some portions of which should be safe-being spaces and some portions of which should be safe-talking spaces. Intuitively, dorms, community centers, and support groups should be safe-being spaces. Labs, classrooms, and reading groups should be safe-talking spaces. But boundaries are easily blurred. And it’s especially no wonder that tensions emerged at Yale, where theresidential college systemdeliberately blurs the boundary between structured learning environments and dormitory life.

So when should institutions design conventions that set up safe-being spaces, as opposed to safe-talking spaces, orvice versa? I think it’s best to be mostly pragmatic about this, and the main point of this blog has been to help people in decision-making situations avoid conceptual confusion about what might be meant by “safe space,” when the issue arises. But some guidance is in order.

大致来说:生活环境应该是安全的地方;学习和研究环境应该是安全的谈话空间。这些概括的例外是常见的。而在某些环境下，比如教室，两者交替使用可能效果更好。最后，有时这两种安全空间的概念可能都不适用。从长远来看，选择性地暴露在逆境中可能会让一个成长中的人更安全。毕竟，即使是最安全的空间——治疗师的房间——最终也要让一个人为不安全的外部世界做好准备。