Intelligence Squared debate: Trigger warning -- Are safe spaces dangerous?

Many of today's universities are trying to create an empathetic environment for all students, but are facing charges that they're stifling the free exchange of ideas.

The Intelligence Squared debate motion is: "Trigger Warning: Safe Spaces are Dangerous."

For the motion:

Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America.

"Enforcing safe spaces can exacerbate dangerous divisions in our society. Our society is deeply polarized. By sealing off large parts of the campus to guard against certain ideas and viewpoints we're going to make that problem worse."

Against the motion:

Michael S. Roth, president of Wesleyan University.

"Safe spaces were vitally important for gay rights. They were vitally important for feminism and I think they're coming up today on college campuses because college campuses have more students from under-represented groups who are trying to define their own places on these campuses."

For the motion:

David L. Hudson Jr., First Amendment scholar and law professor at Vanderbilt University.

"Safe spaces that protect students from offensive or disagreeable speech are anathema to the First Amendment and the freedom of expression that we all hold sacrosanct. Safe spaces infringe upon core fundamental First Amendment principles."

Against the motion:

Ashutosh Bhagwat, law professor, University of California- Davis.

"Speech does not come out of a vacuum, and human beings are not autonomous entities. We are social animals. And we develop our ideas together in these safe spaces, called associations. And that is why, sometimes, associational privacy trumps freedom of speech."

To listen to their debate, click the audio player above.