The pushback against "safe spaces" has begun, and it's overdue

At its core, much of the criticism of the University of Chicago’s new policy seems to betray a total lack of confidence by its fans that the current, virulent strain of campus leftism can withstand any opposition. In response to the Vox piece, progressive columnist Amanda Marcotte tweeted, “So no ‘safe spaces’ means atheists can march into churches and start dissing believers, right? After all, freedom!” Columnist Jonathan Chait, whose liberal credentials are not in doubt, responded, “This is the dispute. Should a campus be a place of open inquiry, or a place to preach settled dogma like a church?” Chait seems to understand that in order for liberalism to survive and thrive, its ideas must be contested. Marcotte, tellingly, seems less confident the current iteration of campus progressivism can survive contact with real-world criticism.

There’s considerable evidence that such lack of confidence might be justified. A crude indication that “safe spaces” and campus identity politics might not thrive in a robust marketplace of ideas is that they’re failing in the actual marketplace. Since the University of Missouri made national news for letting student protests consume its campus, the backlash has been punishing. This fall, undergraduate enrollment is down 8 percent—a loss of 2,100 students. Graduate enrollment is down 7 percent. (By contrast, enrollment at Missouri State went up 770 students and is at an all-time high.) Mizzou has had to shut down four dorms, its credit rating has been downgraded, and the school announced last spring it was facing a budget shortfall of $32 million.

Colleges simply cannot afford to become objects of national ridicule and disgust, especially those that depend on political support. Between 2003 and 2013 the cost of tuition has risen nearly three times the rate of inflation—dramatically more than medical costs, food, or housing. Federal student loan debt is more than $1 trillion and exceeds America’s collective credit card debt. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s response to this is a proposal simply to make public college “free” for families earning less than $125,000 a year. Conservatives, on the other hand, probably wouldn’t mind if the more liberal institutions simply went out of business.