Exactly, I don't get why people are trying to make universities, workplaces, clubs, or anywhere else "safe places". They should not be safe places, they should be places where you feel confronted, challenged and threatened by different ideas and points of view.
My experience shows me that there are as many theological points of view as believers. Everybody gets their own personal variety.
However, you can can bet Piper's teachers would have their worldview being very challenged if an atheist or agnostic student started long discussions about the nature of their mission (http://www.okwu.edu/about/).
I'm not directly disagreeing with you here or putting words in your mouth. I realize you are not saying safe spaces should not exist. Instead I want to make the argument that having safe spaces is reasonable.
People make safe spaces _within_ universities and other institutions for the same reason some combat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder put up signs asking neighbors not to set off fireworks[0]. It is to avoid triggering people that have have experienced serious trauma[1].
For instance using the combat veteran example, it would be unreasonable for a veteran to attend a fireworks show and then complain about the fireworks, but if this same combat veteran was attending University and it would be reasonable to ask the University to provide a safe space away from fireworks or other triggers -- sound proofed dorms if students are constantly setting off fireworks.
There is a big difference in intention between 'safety from conflicting points of view' and safe spaces. Although a safe space sometimes requires limiting certain discussions (a person who was sexuality assaulted might be triggered by discussions and depictions of sexual assault).
[0]: http://www.militarywithptsd.org/fireworks-triggers-ptsd-and-...
[1]: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/post-traumatic-stress-...
"Although a safe space sometimes requires limiting certain discussions" That makes no sense in a university IMHO. Students could be excused of classes due to previous traumatic experiences, not the other way around.
No discussion should be silenced because the topic triggers or bothers someone. Sure, we can be sensitive about it, and take precautionary measures (warn the students in advance of the topic, etc.), but at absolutely no point, IMHO, should a discussion in an university be limited because it bothers, annoys, disrespects or triggers someone.
Yes, that opens room for some awful, violent and disrespectful points of view, but so many pillars of modern society were once those same awful, violent and disrespectful POVs.
At Mizzou, they demanded a separate "safe space" because they were literally being sent death threats, which is a separate way to use the idea, and which, in the light of the past week's events, were not unwarranted.
My concern is that silly things which people do, like say complaining about being made to feel guilty, will be used to paint safe spaces as 'silly' or 'unnecessary' when in fact safe spaces provide a very valuable function.
You act as if "conscience" is an objecively good thing, and not just the result of a bunch of totally arbitrary social expectations.
Gay people who grew up in conservative families often have a conscience that makes them feel bad about being gay. Gay people looking for safe spaces where they aren't reminded that they spent 18 years being told they are bad people is imminently reasonable.
Abused wives often feel guilty about leaving their husbands. Finding safe spaces where they don't have to feel guilty about doing the right thing is imminently reasonable.
So, no, it's not unreasonable to find places where you don't have to "deal with your conscience"
Asking for safe space where you don't have to worry about others trying to manipulate your conscience, OTOH, is not unreasonable.
At the same time, expecting formal services at the on-campus chapel of what is overtly an evangelical Christian university to be that safe space is somewhat unreasonable.
(Which is not to say that Dr. Piper's letter is itself a reasonable response to the scenario it describes.)
Actually this behavior is just because of peace time in todays western world. If students were afraid of actually being in danger, they wouldn't bitch about these things.
That is one the problems I think. Some people (seems like the majority of young students nowdays) feel "challenged and threatened" personally, and not intellectually.
Obviously there are all kinds of things we do to ensure that universities are safe in different ways, and we find ways to try and ensure this safety doesn't interfere too much with learning. Why shouldn't this concern for safety extend to the mental health of students? Chanting "universities are not safe spaces" is a way of avoiding thinking about what kinds of safety we already provide or could provide, and how we can combine these kinds of safety with the challenging education that everyone recognizes is an important part of higher education.
That's a lot easier to say when you're not much more likely to be a victim of violent crime, or of sexual violence, or of racist violence.