“On Campus, Trump Fans Say They Need ‘Safe Spaces’”
New York Times article, December 8, 2016; documents post-election campus tensions at University of Michigan and other schools; shows the early rhetorical inversion where conservative students adopted left-liberal “safe space” language
Summary
Published weeks after the 2016 election, this article documents the fractured campus atmosphere following Trump’s victory. The focal scene is the University of Michigan, where conservative students felt excluded from a campus culture that assumed everyone was grieving the election result — while liberal and minority students feared for their safety amid reports of harassment.
Key Themes
The Rhetorical Inversion
The article’s central observation — captured in its title — is that conservative students began adopting the language of “safe spaces” to describe their need for protection from campus liberal culture. This is a significant rhetorical move: it takes a concept developed by campus progressives to describe spaces free from racism and homophobia and applies it to political viewpoints.
This inversion was immediately contested. A Muslim student wearing a hijab (Ibtihal Makki) noted the irony: “To turn around and say that they need safe spaces after their candidate won I think is ironic and hypocritical.” Her point: conservative white students don’t have outward markers that make them physically vulnerable the way a hijab does.
Institutional Response Problems
University presidents largely erred on the side of acknowledging progressive students’ distress — publicizing grief vigils, listing counseling resources, sending emails about “the values we hold dear.” Conservative students read this as institutional bias: “Nobody has died. Democracy is more alive than ever.”
One exception: Tim Sands at Virginia Tech acknowledged that students might feel “from vindication to shock, from outright fear to enthusiasm” — a notably balanced formulation.
The Hadley Arkes Incident
At Amherst, emeritus political science professor Hadley Arkes uncorked (actually, kept corked) a champagne bottle in class to celebrate Trump’s win. The student newspaper called for him to be held “accountable.” Arkes — a prominent Catholic natural law philosopher closely aligned with the New Right — responded with a characteristic quote: “There is no urbanity or humor… They can respond only in ‘boilerplate,’ quite predictable reflexes.”
Arkes is notable in this context: a natural law theorist of the integralist-adjacent tradition being targeted by progressive students — exactly the campus cultural dynamic that animates the New Right’s “against David French-ism” politics.
Significance for the Wiki
This article is a primary source document for the post-2016 campus culture war that the New Right positions itself against. It shows:
- The rhetorical battlefield where Postliberalism’s “against neutrality” arguments gain traction — conservative students experiencing the gap between liberal proceduralism’s claims and its practice
- The lived experience that fuels the New Right’s critique of elite institutions
- The early emergence of the rhetorical inversions (conservative safe spaces, conservative victimhood) that characterize MAGA cultural politics
Cross-References
- 2016 Election — the precipitating event
- MAGA New Right — the movement this campus dynamic feeds
- Postliberalism — the philosophical response to exactly this kind of campus liberal culture
- Sohrab Ahmari — “Against David French-ism” is a direct response to the dynamic this article documents
- Ideas First — conservative campus organizations as Ideas First infrastructure