The Ethics of the Safe Space

Hi all! So, this is something I am honestly at a loss for answers for.

For some context, I as an educator provide a safe space for my students (this applies to other situations, but this is the easiest for me to explain). They need to talk to me, they can about anything. Now a moral conundrum comes in here at a most basic level. I am required to report certain things (self harm ect.), does that make my room a safe space? Or am I betraying the trust the concept implies when I am obliged to report things?

Another moral thing I notice, and don't know if I am doing it right (though it seems to work now). I refuse to lie to a student for sake of their feelings. So, sometimes their world view is challenged, it makes some uncomfortable. As I tell most kids in this situation, I can only tell you what I see from my point of view they have to figure out their own, But I implore them to challenge their own world view themselves. Am I in the wrong to do that? Is the point of the safe space to ensure everyone feels good, or to be safe to talk about anything and expect a truthful view from someone?

I don't argue, I just give observations between my reality and what they see as theirs. I don't ask that people change their mind, only that they consider other points of view. Am I being reasonable to do so? Where do I draw the line on what is safe and what is not? Do I have that right/responsibility? I in practice have drawn no line, granted there are things I don't want to hear about, but I don't censor them, I simply don't comment, because I truly have nothing to say, that the person has not already asked themselves.

I know this is a loaded topic but an interesting one that I hope will find some good discussion on something that is quite relevant to all of us.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Do they feel safe there?

Also...its not just that you challenge their world view, but HOW you do it. How you say what you say is as important if not more so than what you say.

So... How do you do it?

I approach responses to people as questions more often than statements. Presenting my point of view on the responses to those questions. Honestly, I think I approach as I am just a person to have ideas bounced off of. From there I will share my opinions with as much context as is possible ensuring that they understand my view is not objective reality, only the angle from which I see it. I try to ensure that they establish their own point of view not just to have them adopt mine.

An decent example is students asking about pot. I wont lie and say it's going to kill them. I will remind them of the prices that can be paid for the use of it.

This has applied to one conversation with a student who is considering transitioning. I would never tell someone to stop what they feel is right for them, however, I did ask them to consider the costs. Particularly as an adolescent, I asked that they look to the future too. Ensure to themselves that this is what they want for good. That particular conversation went well, I learned a lot and the student said I had some good points. They still share a lot with me and when it was announced I was leaving at the end of this school year they were the first to reach out and say thank you. So I know they felt safe.

However, judging when and if someone feels safe is a tricky thing. Again, this always leads me to deep concentration to the meaning of safe.

Thank you for the reply,
Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

I imagine that if they keep coming and talking to you...and listening then that's enough to tell that they may feel safe.

I know that I take great pains not to speak much to people I don't feel safe around.

Safe space is not the same as a non-critical thinking space. I'll add more to the post about the ways you demonstrate that in your two replies

Here is a chart that details the differences between debate and dialogue:

https://capstone.unst.pdx.edu/sites/default/files/Dialogue%20and%20Debate_0.pdf

The way that you demonstrate that you do dialogue comes from this quote in your OP

I don't argue, I just give observations between my reality and what they see as theirs. I don't ask that people change their mind, only that they consider other points of view. Am I being reasonable to do so?

And ironically, here:

I refuse to lie to a student for sake of their feelings.So, sometimes their world view is challenged, it makes some uncomfortable. As I tell most kids in this situation, I can only tell you what I see from my point of view they have to figure out their own, But I implore them to challenge their own world view themselves.

Now I don’t know exactly how you do this offline, by which I mean what words you use, but simply based on the way that you interact at TOTJO, they are unlikely to start with “You’re wrong…” and more likely to start with “(Summary of main points and a clarification on whether what you summarized was indeed the case)” and then. “I see. Have you considered…?” In the first case you invite a defensive posture, and in the second case you invite that critical thinking posture because you 1. Summarized and showed that you were truly listening, and 2. simply invited them to consider an alternative perspective.

Also here:

I in practice have drawn no line, granted there are things I don't want to hear about, but I don't censor them, I simply don't comment, because I truly have nothing to say, that the person has not already asked themselves.

And this from your second post

I approach responses to people as questions more often than statements. Presenting my point of view on the responses to those questions. Honestly, I think I approach as I am just a person to have ideas bounced off of. From there I will share my opinions with as much context as is possible ensuring that they understand my view is not objective reality, only the angle from which I see it. I try to ensure that they establish their own point of view not just to have them adopt mine.

Sometimes a safe space is just about listening. Maybe asking questions that provide the opportunity for the person to do deeper thinking on their own. But then you also do something else. You provide your answers, but not your expertise which you could do as a teacher. You have more life experience, you have more schooling. You’ve undoubtedly read plenty of papers, books and had plenty of training. But you don’t and therefore, for that space, that time, you are both equals in the conversation.

This has applied to one conversation with a student who is considering transitioning. I would never tell someone to stop what they feel is right for them, however, I did ask them to consider the costs. Particularly as an adolescent, I asked that they look to the future too. Ensure to themselves that this is what they want for good. That particular conversation went well, I learned a lot and the student said I had some good points. They still share a lot with me and when it was announced I was leaving at the end of this school year they were the first to reach out and say thank you. So I know they felt safe.

This demonstrates something perfectly. Here you positioned yourself as a learner and not as an expert. The student considering transition came to you and I assume they remained the expert in their own experience which is why they may have come to you at the end to thank you.

Suppose it occurred like this, one student says to a group of other students “ trans* individuals are just confused and they need to see a doctor” or something similar. And then the student considering transition says “I am not confused. I have always felt this way” And then a debate begins between not just the two students, but between all of the students and this one student. And the other students present facts and figures and anecdotes to support their view that trans people are confused.

The student considering transitioning only has their experience to go off of and wasn’t prepared to defend it. But there they are defending it. Why are they defending it? Because there is a defensive posture inherent in debate, because they feel alone, because no one asked (in some cases) what is it like for you? And honestly listened.

The need for safe spaces exists because there is a dominant narrative in which minority narratives do not exist. This dominant narrative exists as fact and other narratives are belittled, dismissed, smothered, or otherwise marginalized and the experiences of individuals with that narrative are not considered valid.

But,

When you invite a dialogue
When you actively listen
When you explore together
When you are equals in the conversation
When a person remains an expert in their own experience and their experience is valued with questions like “what is that like?” “how does that feel”? Then that is a safe space.

At least that’s my take

Going to split your post so I can reply separately.

Another moral thing I notice, and don't know if I am doing it right (though it seems to work now). I refuse to lie to a student for sake of their feelings. So, sometimes their world view is challenged, it makes some uncomfortable. As I tell most kids in this situation, I can only tell you what I see from my point of view they have to figure out their own, But I implore them to challenge their own world view themselves. Am I in the wrong to do that? Is the point of the safe space to ensure everyone feels good, or to be safe to talk about anything and expect a truthful view from someone?

Why would you do any different? If you're just telling people what they want to hear then you are barely a functional "adult" human. Maybe more of a real estate agent, or other similar moral garbage.

For some context, I as an educator provide a safe space for my students (this applies to other situations, but this is the easiest for me to explain). They need to talk to me, they can about anything. Now a moral conundrum comes in here at a most basic level. I am required to report certain things (self harm ect.), does that make my room a safe space? Or am I betraying the trust the concept implies when I am obliged to report things?

Yeah, it more or less completely invalidates the concept of safe space. I get what you mean, and I get that we've built policy into all sorts of "occupations" to protect people (ie you) from having to deal with the burden of certain issues - basically you pass it on, and if you follow the protocol you are (legally?) off the hook. I can't really take too much of a high ground on that, as my own employment is littered with similar processes and policies, especially when dealing with minors (I have slightly more jurisdiction dealing with adults, but not much - generally around sex issues. Adults can elect to be anonymous, or not report - children everything must be reported...the ethical minefield about when, how, or why, you become entitled to control of your own information is probably relevant to this topic, but not something we'll solve here)

but, the simple non-policy, non-bureaucratic answer is - it means you can't be trusted. You're not a friend, you're an agent who holds your job or a piece of paper (the policy) in a higher esteem than the trust between us. As an adult I can simply say "get F-ed" and not talk to you. As a child, I end up being betrayed, and potentially view all adults (and later, my peers) as threats that will overturn my trust if it seems economical to do so, or if a piece of paper (oooooo! policy! scary!) tells them to do so.

There is no world where a process driven response to the "human condition" is always the right one. We can use data and analysis to develop process that will be close enough, enough of the time. It may even be closer and more frequent than the response any given random human would give in the situation, so, on paper - a good result.

Is that what you want though? The basic bonds and essence of human relationships broken down into statistically acceptable outcomes?

For your own good, I am sure.

Roslyn and James thank you for the replies.

Roslyn, that makes a lot of sense, however, the thought of almost exactly what James brought up is what bothers me. What the policy says and what I would see as the ideal don't really work together as much as I think many believe.

James to be honest the policy thing sucks. I do try to skirt some of the pushing it off, "passing the buck" if you will, by giving them resources to reach out on their own (this is big with drug kids). I also hate the idea of I'm just doing what I am told as far as reports go. It's actually slowly push my career track towards being where that path of reporting ends (I.E. a dean or councilor, which I am working on obtaining the education required to do either job at the moment).

As far as the human relationships being broken down into the statistically acceptable outcomes, the system is designed around that very idea. There are a lot of points where I diverge from the norm and try to not be that system, because ironically the data shows that isn't working in the US.

I will say this though and I am honest and keep the students aware, I am not their friend. I still have a job to do, I am still a teacher and have 'responsibilities beholden to the contract I have to sign for employment agree or not.

I am grateful for the responses they have given me much to think about right now. As I get ready to move to a new school it is how I am going to run my classroom that is what is making me consider this idea.

If I don't conform to the ideal of the safe space, I don't believe I should hang a sign or present my self as such simply because the Admin side likes that look for every classroom.

I hope that makes sense, I am sure I'll have some more thoughts later and may want to expand the topic beyond my own personal/professional understanding of the concept. The idea of what and who are the arbiter of safe and not is something I am considering deeply. Is it society? Is it the social contract, the government (in this my example it is), the parents, the individual? Just considerations.

Thank you again.

Much Love, Respect, and Peace,
Kobos

I don't think that's what most people mean when they say safe space.
I do think that's the right (almost expected) thing to do anyhow.

What's safe or right for people depends a bit on where they are to a certain extent. I don't think there's an ultimate arbiter of either, but there definitely still are reasonable expectations to meet.

If you're a teacher (depending on the state) you're legally a mandatory reporter for at least abuse regarding those kids, but you likely have more discretion with issues. I wouldn't want to be put in a situation where I'd have to judge a situation where I'm told something of that nature in confidence.

The world isn't a safe place, so unconditionally coddling people isn't good for them. I don't think being a safe space is good in and of itself, so why focus on it? Why not just focus on being the best for yourself and your students? Giving them the best chance for success is the best way of keeping them safe.

You've had some detailed answers so I won't go into much detail myself.

But with children I feel that safe space doesn't just mean 'safe' in terms of keeping everything they say secret and making them comfortable. You being a mandatory reporter I don't think is contrary to the idea of a safe space... being such a reporter extends that safe space outwards, so that if a child reports something like abuse, your reporting helps to keep them from harm. You're a focal point for that safety. Children don't understand the nuances of things like we do, so they may not understand it, but one day they might be able to look back and see what you did for them.

In terms of safety with discussion, a 'safe' space allows the discussion of topics without judgement (and there's a lot of that in the world these days). Children often think of themselves as the holder of what's right, such that anything they say is correct, and anything you say is clearly not. Challenging that notion is important for critical thought.

I tend to my aerospace bent on stuff like this; its analogous to 'restricted airspace'. That is, a chunk of sky defined by it's outer 3D boundary which is controlled for special use activities. It allows controls to be placed on who is inside, and what they can do. Those restrictions are done for the purpose of allowing a focus on a particular type of activity which otherwise cannot be done with the same level of focus outside of those controls.

Nothing more, nothing less. So its only a problem if the person mistakenly believes that outside it is like inside it. A way to ensure this is managed is to control both access into, but also access out of.

But of course, if there is no type of activity focus that benefits from a restricted airspace.... then it just looks like stealing some space for group to do their own thing BUT that is a group dynamic dilemma, not a safe space dilemma. The difference being the group manages access based on its group identity rather then the space being managed fairly for the activity.