top of page
  • Writer's pictureSam Wilks

Exploring the impact of campus culture on conservative students.

In recent years, the landscape of higher education has undergone significant shifts, particularly in the realms of discourse and debate. Among these changes, the introduction and proliferation of trigger warnings and the establishment of safe spaces have emerged as topics of considerable controversy. These mechanisms, designed ostensibly to protect students from potentially distressing content and create inclusive environments, have rightfully sparked debate about their impact on the free exchange of ideas and the intellectual resilience of students. This article examines whether these practices will marginalise conservative students.

At the core of the discussion on trigger warnings and safe spaces is the principle of academic freedom. This principle, cherished in the tradition of Western education, advocates for the unfettered exploration of ideas, the challenging of preconceptions, and the rigorous debate of contentious issues. However, the well-intentioned efforts to shield students from discomfort inadvertently stifles academic freedom, particularly for those holding conservative views, who find their perspectives increasingly sidelined or labelled as harmful.

This marginalisation is not merely theoretical. There are documented instances where conservative students feel compelled to self-censor or avoid participation in academic discussions for fear of social ostracization or academic reprisal. For example, a study conducted within Australian universities (though not specifically in the Northern Territory, where data is scant) found that a significant number of students who identified with conservative ideologies reported feeling uncomfortable expressing their views on contentious topics, ranging from immigration policy to gender issues, within the academic setting. So much for a "safe space".

The crux of the issue lies in the definition and application of concepts like "safety" and "harm." Originally intended to shield individuals from direct threats to their physical well-being, these terms have evolved within the academic context to encompass protection from ideas and viewpoints that may cause emotional discomfort. While safeguarding mental health is undoubtedly important, this expanded interpretation risks equating exposure to challenging ideas with actual harm, thereby justifying the suppression of certain viewpoints in the name of protecting students. Imagine a judiciary composed of such individuals, their ability to use lawfare to discriminate and legitimise their personal agendas will be destructive and devastating.

The implications of this trend extend beyond the personal discomfort of conservative students. It touches on the very purpose of higher education as a crucible for intellectual development and societal progress. The ability to engage with diverse, and often conflicting, viewpoints is foundational to critical thinking and the development of robust, well-considered positions. When universities, through the mechanisms of trigger warnings and safe spaces, prioritise the avoidance of discomfort over engagement with challenging ideas, they risk fostering intellectual homogeneity and undermining the resilience necessary for navigating a complex world.

The focus on protecting students from discomfort has unintended consequences for those it seeks to protect. By insulating students from ideas that challenge their preconceptions, universities inadvertently impair their ability to engage constructively with the world beyond the campus. The ability to engage with opposing viewpoints is not only a necessary academic skill but also a precondition for effective citizenship and leadership in today's globalised society, which is characterised by sharp divisions and rapid change.

The question, then, is not whether universities should be places of safety—indeed, they must be—but what kind of safety they should provide. Safety should not equate to insulation from intellectual challenge but to the assurance of a respectful and open environment where ideas can be debated and scrutinised on their merits without fear of retribution or ostracization. In this context, the real challenge for higher education is to balance the legitimate needs for emotional well-being with the imperatives of academic freedom and intellectual resilience.

To address the marginalisation of conservative students—and indeed any students whose views diverge from the prevailing orthodoxy—universities must reaffirm their commitment to academic freedom as a fundamental principle. This includes reevaluating the use of trigger warnings and the concept of safe spaces to ensure they do not become tools for ideological conformity. It also requires the cultivation of a campus culture that values diversity of thought as much as it values other forms of diversity, recognising that exposure to differing viewpoints is a vital component of education.

Australian universities, including those in regions as remote as the Northern Territory, have an opportunity to lead by example. By fostering an environment that truly embraces the free exchange of ideas, they can prepare students not just for academic success but for active and informed engagement in the diverse and often divisive world they will inherit. Adding value to the students as they enter the workforce through the ability to be flexible, adaptable, and capable.

The challenge of balancing protection from harm with the imperative of intellectual freedom is not trivial. However, it is essential for the health of democratic societies and the development of resilient, critical-thinking citizens. The marginalisation of conservative students—or any group whose views are sidelined in the name of protection—signals a need for reflection and recalibration in our approach to education. By reaffirming the value of academic freedom and fostering a culture of respectful, open debate, universities can ensure they remain beacons of learning, innovation, and societal progress.

From the author.

The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security Consultant with almost 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organizations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.

2 views0 comments


bottom of page