Aseal Tineh: In a recent troubling article published on the New York Times, contributor Judith Shulevitz attacked students for creating safe spaces for survivors of sexual assault and violence, attempting to support her claim that “students [are] so eager to self-infantalize.” Shulevitz falsely maintains that the creation of safe spaces somehow undermines freedom of expression in a way that is “bad for them and for everyone else.” Upon graduating and being thrown into the real world, these self-infantalized children will “be unprepared for the social and intellectual headwinds that will hit them.” There are many problems with this line of thinking, not least important of which is that it is embedded in an inherent double standard. When students stand up and ask for things such as shared spaces, we are criticized as being unable to maturely deal with criticism, offense and hurt feelings. For example, Shulevitz references my own question which I posed to El Rhazoui during the event. Shulevitz falsely frames my question as my being “so overcome by [my] own fragility” that I could not accept Charlie Hebdo’s “disrespect” of Muslims and Islam. This is not at all what I called into question. Rather, my objections arose out of the assertion El Rhazoui implicitly made, an assertion that I was not deserving of the same right to freedom of expression that she herself was exercising. In a portion of the conversation that has unfortunately been cut (notice the jump to closing remarks at 1:30:24) from the recording posted on YouTube, El Rhazoui responds to my rejection of the phrase “JeSuisCharlie” and by my decision to cover my body in highly disturbing ways. For example, at one point El Rhazoui goes so far as to suggest that Muslims leave their religion at home and not bring it to public places. The double standard is apparent. Shulevitz essentially applauds El Rhazoui’s expression while simultaneously depicting me as fragile, failing to realize that I too was trying to exercise my own freedom of expression. More here.