Few millennials are unfamiliar with the term “safe space.” The expression gets thrown around quite a bit– especially on college campuses — and a clear-cut definition is difficult to come by. Even so, the safe-space mentality has seeped into campuses across the U.S. to the point where students are being coddled whenever there is potential for them to feel uncomfortable.

Safe spaces intend to create “a place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental ability; a place where the rules guard each person’s self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others.” In an ideal world where every person thinks the same and is offended by the same things, this would be an awesome idea. Plot twist, this is not that world. What this definition describes is a place where there is little to no room for true expression, as it may hurt someone’s feelings.

Universities should be safe and promote safety because no one should ever have to feel threatened. On the other hand, stimulation of diversity of thought is necessary, especially in an environment that has as its core purpose intellectual growth and stimulation; with that comes the potential for some to feel uncomfortable and potentially offended. Comparing these experiences to feeling threatened, however, undermines the seriousness of actual threatening circumstances.

By thinking we are entitled to being babied, our generation risks becoming emotionally and intellectually underprepared for reality. We grow older believing we have the right never to feel upset. The preservation of an environment where no one is offended is an illusion; in order for some people to be accommodated, others have to be silenced. In order for a space to be completely comfortable, free speech has to be limited. What’s more important, then? For everyone’s feelings to be intact, or for everyone’s voice to be heard?

When JK Rowling received the Pen/Allen Foundation Award for Literary Service, in the speech she gave she said, “the tides of populism and nationalism currently sweeping many developed countries have been accompanied by demands that unwelcome and inconvenient voices be removed from public discourse.” She then addressed a petition circulating the web which requested to ban Donald Trump from speaking in the UK. “I find almost everything that Mr. Trump says objectionable. I consider him offensive and bigoted. But he has my full support to come to my country and be offensive and bigoted there. His freedom to speak protects my freedom to call him a bigot. His freedom guarantees mine.”

Rowling’s attitude is the kind that should be promoted in universities, as opposed to what has led works like Greek mythology to be under fire for possibly offensive content, or even students fearing opening their mouths and offending someone.

I prioritize respecting and valuing every person, but limiting expression does not achieve that. Being offended and being triggered are different things and by overdoing the safe-space mentality, we do not protect the dignity of others. We create people who are afraid of conflict, who cannot effectively argue without getting their feelings hurt and who think they have the right to throw a tantrum whenever uncomfortable.

Letizia Mariani can be reached at mari8259@stthomas.edu