The phrase “political correctness” has become commonplace for the American public in the twenty-first century. Defined by Merriam Webster as “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated,” political correctness requires constant attention. Whether we’re simply talking to a friend or giving a speech, we must filter our words so they are respectful and accurate – otherwise, the “PC Police” will bear down on us.

With the evolution of our society into a much more tolerant and accepting entity, political correctness is more important than ever. The emphasis placed on refraining from using slurs, misgendering others, and making insensitive jokes signifies an extremely promising step – a step toward respect and tolerance for all. Some, but not many, opponents of political correctness still want to be able to make off-color jokes and call others racial slurs, and this is obviously insensitive. Everyone deserves respect. However, when political correctness moves away from ensuring that everyone is respected and toward ensuring that nobody is ever offended, we begin to experience a problem. This shift also begs the question, “Who determines what is offensive?” The answer is still ambiguous, but this idea of protecting the “right not to be offended” appears in news stories across the country almost every day.

For example, recently a fundraising dinner hosted by the Connecticut Democratic Party was renamed after some deemed the original name offensive. The fundraiser, formerly known as The Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner, was stripped of the first two names because of those presidents’ histories as slaveholders. Keeping this in mind, we arguably might as well rename our nation’s capital – George Washington also owned slaves.

The problem with situations like this is that they create the illusion of a “safe space” in which no one is ever challenged. In previous years, the attitude toward potentially offensive speech was “What you said could be offensive to some people, but I respect your right to say it.” Now, the mentality is “Your speech offends me. I want it banned.”

Another example of the new PC mentality regarding avoiding offense and creating “safe spaces” can be found on college campuses. For instance, at Yale, controversy arose after a residence hall administrator disagreed with a student group’s polite request that no “culturally insensitive and unaware” Halloween costumes be worn; her dissent was in the spirit of free expression. The problem with this situation, however, does not lie in the debate between the student group and the administrator. A request for students to rethink their costume choices is not the same as demanding that certain costumes be banned. No, the troubling part of the situation arose when the administrator was subsequently verbally attacked by some of the students. One in particular screamed, “It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It is about creating a home here!” If that student didn’t want an intellectual space, then why did she attend Yale? I didn’t know that one of the country’s top universities could be mistaken for a $40,000 day care.

Further perpetuating this student’s claim that college should be a safe haven rather than an “intellectual space,” students across the country have rallied around the concept of “trigger warnings.” Some students are demanding warnings for almost anything that could be upsetting in class. For instance, at law schools, students have argued that rape law should not be taught, since it has the potential to be upsetting to students. Of course, in order to be a lawyer, one must know rape law: Harvard Law School Professor Jeannie Suk Gersen compares this phenomenon to “a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he’ll become distressed if he sees or handles blood.”

With the rise of trigger warnings come sweeping reforms in university speech codes. All across the country, under pressure from students seeking a “safe space,” universities have released lists of words and phrases deemed offensive, and the list for some schools is truly baffling. For example, the University of California system recently redesigned its speech code to condemn “offensive” statements such as “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” even instructing its professors to refrain from using these in class. The basis for the condemnation of these statements is that they can be considered “microaggressions,” a term used to define any unintentionally discriminatory speech.

This rise of the “safe space” is counterproductive. College is supposed to be a place where students are challenged to think differently. However, in this new society in which trigger warnings are expected and safe spaces advocated, students refuse to be challenged and fail to face ideas and concepts for fear of experiencing discomfort or anxiety. Without struggling with new ideas, their intellectual growth is stunted. As a result, when they finish college, they may be unprepared to handle the challenges of the real world. Because trigger warnings allow students to avoid certain topics, they don’t learn how to cope with their fear and anxiety.

This political correctness revolution may seem far removed from us, but when many seniors step onto college campuses next fall, they’ll be right in the middle of the debate regarding safe spaces, trigger warnings, and offensive speech. With this in mind, I urge all students to face the cold, hard truth: Reality isn’t a safe space, and it doesn’t come with trigger warnings.