Students should not engage in discussions of race or racism, of microaggressions and victimhood, one university official says.
Rather, the supposed victim merely needs to say “Ouch!” when they become offended and the insensitive accused needs to say “Oops!”
This type of idiotic infantilization of students is the work of Jesús Treviño, the “Vice Provost for Inclusive Excellence” at the University of Arizona.
Treviño has a PhD and gets paid more than $200,000 to tell students and faculty the best way to navigate the complex world of conflict in personal relationships is to behave like a child, without ever exploring why, how or if the supposed “victim” has the right to claim such a status or the “accused” is really at fault.
Having a real debate, Treviño argues, is bad because debates “have the explicit assumption that someone will win and someone will lose. Treviño prefers dialogue, because dialogue is all about “achieving greater levels of understanding.”
This is the “safe space” theory that the left is advocating. One particular way of creating such a safe space is particularly idiotic:
“If a student feels hurt or offended by another student’s comment, the hurt student can say ‘ouch.’ In acknowledgement, the student who made the hurtful comment says ‘oops.’ If necessary, there can be further dialogue about this exchange.”
As the Daily Wire points out, this creates a victim/bully dynamic where the person who utters “ouch” is automatically given the status of victim, while the bully who says “oops” must effectively admit their guilt, whether they agree with that status or not.
No debate on whether the victim is correct in their assumption. No need to prove that the bully meant to be a “bully.” Simply accept guilt and move on.
This system has a chilling effect. Stating that further dialogue should only be pursued “if necessary” reinforces the alleged rightness of the victim and the idea that the individual who made the “offensive” remark has erred, and that he should feel remorseful. It doesn’t allow for an equitable exchange of ideas. Instead, it shuts down debate.
This policy is insidious, and unfortunately reflective of the times in which we live. Intellectual diversity is being targeted and eliminated under the guise of “maximiz[ing] free speech” through dialogue.