Debate: Trigger Warning: Safe Spaces are Dangerous
Long hailed as bastions of intellectual development and ground zero for the free and spirited exchange of ideas, today's universities have come under attack by those who argue that a new generation of students and administrators are trading in academia's most cherished values for political correctness and inclusion. At the heart of this debate is the question of safe spaces, how we define them, and whether they aid or hinder intellectual inquiry. Deeply rooted in social justice movements of the past, these spaces promise a reprieve from bigotry and oppression by allowing today's students - the most culturally and racially diverse in history - the opportunity to express themselves in an empathetic environment. But to their critics, safe spaces pose a dire threat to free speech and undermine the resilience of a generation. Are safe spaces dangerously coddling young minds? Or are they a legitimate and necessary component of modern education? 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

#152 - Trigger Warning: Are Safe Spaces Dangerous?

America is more divided than ever—but it doesn’t have to be. Open to Debate offers an antidote to the chaos. We bring multiple perspectives together for real, nonpartisan debates. Debates that are structured, respectful, clever, provocative, and driven by the facts. Open to Debate is on a mission to restore balance to the public square through expert moderation, good-faith arguments, and reasoned analysis. We examine the issues of the day with the world’s most influential thinkers spanning science, technology, politics, culture, and global affairs. It’s time to build a stronger, more united democracy with the civil exchange of ideas. Be open-minded. Be curious. Be ready to listen. Join us in being Open to Debate. (Formerly Intelligence Squared U.S.)

Education

Training

Language Courses

Higher Education

K-12

Educational Technology

News

Politics

Government

The Supreme Court will soon decide on a case surrounding a medication used for abortion, mifepristone, and whether the drug should continue to be available based on claims of safety and ethical considerations. Those in favor of restrictions argue that the FDA fast-tracked its approval without considering health impacts. Those against restriction argue the FDA made its decisions based on safety and efficiency, and it’s being targeted to further infringe on women’s rights. Now we debate: Should the Courts Restrict Access to the Abortion Pill?  

Petitioner: Julia Kaye, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project  
Respondent: Catherine Glenn Foster, Senior Fellow in Legal Policy at the Charlotte Lozier Institute  
Judge's Chair: John Donvan, Moderator-in-Chief and Emmy award-winning journalist 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

MOCK TRIAL: Should the Courts Restrict Access to the Abortion Pill?

Many colleges during the pandemic decided to make their applications test-optional, but new research has elite colleges rethinking that policy. Those in favor of reinstating say the SAT is the best way to bring talented students from all socioeconomic levels into the fold. Those against it say it favors the affluent and argue that admissions decisions should be based on a holistic, more inclusive review that considers a wide range of factors Now we debate: Should Elite Universities Reinstate the SAT?

Arguing Yes: John Friedman, Professor and Chair of the Economics Department at Brown University  
Arguing No: Ben Nelson, Founder of Minerva University 
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Should Elite Universities Reinstate the SAT?

Tensions have been ramping up at universities across the country as students continue to protest the war in Gaza. Reports of antisemitism, islamophobia, and harassment have led to concerns that some students have crossed a line into hateful and threatening speech that requires intervention. Others contend that efforts to clamp down on protests in the name of campus safety suppresses free speech. Within that context, we revisit this debate on adjacent issues from a few years back to see what lessons that can be applied to the current situation: Is Free Speech Threatened on Campus? 

Arguing Yes: John McWhorter, Linguist and Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University; Wendy Kaminer, Writer and Lawyer   
Arguing No: Shaun Harper, Founder and Executive Director of the USC Race and Equity Center; Jason Stanley, Professor of Philosophy at Yale University 
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is Free Speech Threatened on Campus?

Former criminal offenders in the United States face challenges reentering the job market after incarceration and so-called “Ban the Box” policies aim to fix this. This criminal justice initiative calls for removing questions about criminal history from job applications and delaying background checks. Those against "the box" argue former offenders shouldn’t continue to be punished and it prevents societal reintegration. Those in favor of early screening argue employers have a responsibility to ensure their business’s safety and make informed hiring decisions. Those who are against it argue former offenders shouldn’t continue to be punished and it prevents societal reintegration. Now we debate: Ban the Box: Should We Banish the Criminal History Check Box from Job Applications? 
 
Arguing Yes: Beth Avery, Senior Staff Attorney at the National Employment Law Project 

Arguing No: Jennifer Doleac, Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice at Arnold Ventures 
 
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ban the Box: Should We Banish the Criminal History Check Box from Job Applications?

The U.S. has provided more than $75 billion in aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Some Congress members question whether we have done enough to help, and they say increased funding sustains strategic interests and demonstrates support of democratic values. Those who say we should stop funding the war, argue that Ukraine can’t win and additional U.S. dollars will prolong the loss of human lives and territory. Now we debate, in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations: Should Congress Stop Funding the War in Ukraine?
 
Arguing Yes: John Mearsheimer, Political Science Professor at the University of Chicago;   

Daniel L. Davis, Retired Lieutenant Colonel, Senior Fellow and Military Expert at Defense Priorities 

Arguing No: Heather Conley, President of German Marshall Fund of the United States;  

Paula Dobriansky, Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs; Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Vice Chair, Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center for Strategy & Security   

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates 
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

#152 - Trigger Warning: Are Safe Spaces Dangerous?

Download our free app to listen on your phone