Why *Safe* Spaces Aren’t: The Necessity of Recognizing and Condemning Orwellian Doublespeak

Democracy faces an insidious threat. More and more, politicians and pundits alike have taken to engaging in a dangerous form of lying – Orwellian Doublespeak.[1] The term “doublespeak” was coined as a mashup of the concepts of doublethink and newspeak from George Orwell’s 1984. Doublethink refers to genuinely believing two ideas at direct odds with each other. Examples in 1984 include statements like “War is Peace”, “Freedom is Slavery”, and “Ignorance is Strength”. Newspeak is the official language of the totalitarian regime that prides itself on reducing words to their most basic level, stripping the citizenry of the ability to express or even conceptualize dissent.[2] Since its creation, the term has been used to describe various methods of obfuscating truth. I use the term “Orwellian Doublespeak” to refer to a form of hypocrisy where the perpetrator maintains that they do one thing and its opposite simultaneously.

A modern example of Orwellian Doublespeak can be seen in Luke Turner’s piece He Will Not Divide Us. In short, a flag bearing the titular phrase was displayed online 24/7 during the Trump presidency from various locations. To this day, the official website states that the art piece was “a show of resistance and insistence, opposition and optimism . . . .”[3] Though Turner claims that he is not letting Trump *divide* the populous, Turner also claims that there are forces to resist, which necessitates division. Modern Orwellian Doublespeak often takes the form of claiming that a position long proved false is nevertheless true. Putin uses this kind of behavior when he attempts to justify his invasion of Ukraine as a *defense* of *independent states.* Trump engaged in this fallacy when he insisted that he *won* the 2020 election.[4] Both lies have led to a loss of life and the undermining of the fundamental principles of democracy and freedom. But the use of this kind of doublespeak is not limited to the dictators (and wannabe dictators) of the world. It is used by news sources, marketers, colleges, and individuals around the world.

Pictured: One of the most pretentious yet shallow pieces of art ever made.

A clear example of this can be seen with so-called *safe* spaces. Colleges and other organizations that set up these spaces often claim that *all* speech and opinions are respected equally within such spaces. In reality, all speech is indeed welcome unless that speech challenges what the creators of the *safe* space wanted. This is exactly what played out during the Fall 2017 semester at the University of North Texas.[5]

During the Halloween season, one student (Student A) decided to decorate their dorm room door with a noose. Another student (Student B) complained that the decoration evoked imagery of a lynching and that it was inappropriate. The university sided with Student B and requested that the decoration be taken down. Student A almost immediately complied and seemed to learn their lesson. In addition to this, the university decided that the students in the dorm as a whole should learn why these kinds of decorations were not appropriate. To accomplish this, the university organized a mandatory event at which they claimed that all opinions were welcome. At the event, various students advocated that Student A had done nothing wrong and that the university was blowing the issue out of proportion. The administrators of the *safe* space immediately turned on the students with this position and made it clear that this opinion was not okay.

We should not eliminate these spaces. We should call them what they are: spaces in which certain assumptions or rules have been made and are not up for debate. In short, they are selective safe spaces – a type of echo chamber. Attempted deviations from the assumptions within these spaces would correctly be seen as failing to engage with the issue presented. Indeed, such selective safe spaces can be useful and certainly have their place, particularly in helping ostracized groups find their voice or teaching difficult lessons. For instance, for members of the LGBTQ+ community, finding a space in which one’s identity is not questioned and is taken as truth is invaluable. Without the existence of such spaces, ostracized groups face persecution, violence, and even death. Such spaces are also necessary to have productive debates. If a debate opponent is allowed to engage in logical fallacies, they are not actually critiquing an argument or presenting a valid one. In addition, this is harmful because it gives an excuse to those who need to learn the lesson of the selective safe space the most to instead write it off.

However, the existence of true safe spaces for almost all types of speech is also important, even if the spaces themselves aren’t pretty. Indeed, such spaces are usually highly toxic and full of hate. However, if such spaces do not exist, there is no place for people to question fundamental rules and ideas. I like to believe that this is why the right to free speech and a free press is in the very first amendment to the Constitution and also why courts are cautious to place restrictions on political speech. Indeed, political speech is considered to be the most protected form of speech under the First Amendment – even when such speech is offensive or irreverent.

Pictured: One of the true cesspools of the internet, which is still somewhat moderated.

However, the site trumpets the fact that it is a center for people to say just about whatever they want. I don't recommend though unless you are prepared to see some shit (both metaphorically and literally).

The true horror of 1984 is its conclusion (spoilers ahead, but 1984’s plot is not really the kind that is ruined by spoilers). After being captured and tortured by the government, the protagonist is tortured until his spirit is broken. The book ends by the protagonist participating in a rally for the totalitarian regime. However, this time, instead of simply going through the motions (like he had done countless times), he *realizes* that he truly *loves* Big Brother. By breaking his spirit, the regime was successful in maintaining absolute control over the protagonist. Thankfully, we live in a world where outright torture for thought crimes – and torture generally – is illegal under international law (see, e.g., UN Convention Against Torture, Geneva Conventions, Rome Statute, etc.) as well as under many, but not all, countries’ domestic laws (The fact that I have to qualify that statement is a separate and heartbreaking issue). However, Orwellian Doublespeak can be, on its own, sufficient to convince individuals to *love* their Big Brother.

Pictured: My homie Georgie Orwell.

Perhaps the most insidious part of Orwellian Doublespeak is that, when done correctly, it can lead to listeners believing that there is nothing wrong with atrocities. Once one believes that they are absolutely justified, violently attempting to take over the Capitol can seem like a reasonable idea. The participants of the January 6th Capitol riot truly believed that what they were doing was morally right. This was a symptom of the Orwellian Doublespeak of Trump. If we want to stop riots like this in the future, we must condemn and discredit such speech wherever we find it. However, we cannot outlaw it entirely, otherwise we would become the very thing we were pretending to *condemn*.

[1] Throughout this Essay, I attempt to label examples of Orwellian Doublespeak with asterisks around each word so it is clear that the word is a lie. This is an attempt to eliminate the harm of repeating the incorrect statements.

[2] From 1984: "You haven’t a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,’ he said almost sadly. ‘Even when you write it you’re still thinking in Oldspeak. I’ve read some of those pieces that you write in ‘The Times’ occasionally. They’re good enough, but they’re translations. In your heart you’d prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?"

[3] http://www.hewillnotdivide.us

[4] Another potential form of this hypocrisy was pointed out by the New York Times in Paul Krugman’s subscriber-only newsletter on March 8, 2022: "My biggest concern for the United States, at least, is political. You mightn’t think that Republicans could simultaneously demand that we stop buying Russian oil and attack President Biden for high gasoline prices. That is, you mightn’t think that if you’d spent the last 25 years sleeping in a cave. In fact, that’s exactly what’s about to happen."

[5] The following account happened to a close friend while he was in attendance as an undergraduate student at the University of North Texas. He is one of the students who advocated for student A in the story, telling me via text on March 9, 2022 that “the main issue was that people who thought the meeting was not great (which were a few) weren’t allowed to voice their opinions, which they [sic] specifically welcomed all opinions” (emphasis added). This serves as an unfortunate example of why mislabeling such educational discussions as *safe* - he completely missed the point.