The most common controversy in connection with safe spaces is the degree to which safety is relevant and useful in difficult dialogues (Arao & Clemens, 2013). Some authors argue that safety in the classroom does not necessarily mean being “without discomfort, struggle or pain” (Holley & Steiner, 2005, p. 50) as learning and growing involve stepping out of one’s comfort zone and confronting issues one feels uncomfortable with (Arao & Clemens, 2013; Henry, 1994). As Henry (1994) puts it straightforwardly, a place where these important controversial issues are addressed is inherently “political, dangerous and ‘unsafe’” (p. 1) as there is “nothing safe about engaging student in rigorous and critical ways” (p. 2). This is also in line with the pedagogy of discomfort, popularized by Boler (2004), which emphasises that teachers and learners alike need to move out of their comfort zones to analyse their deeply embedded beliefs, so that great learning could happen. As Boostrom sees it (1998), teachers cannot foster their student’s critical thinking by turning their classrooms into safe spaces; he argues that “if everyone’s voice is accepted and no one’s voice can be criticized, then no one can grow” (p. 408). He goes on by saying that to become critical thinkers, students “need to hear other voices” but also “need to be able to respond to those voices, to criticize them, to challenge them, to sharpen [their] own perspectives through the friction of dialogue” (p. 408). Boostrom concludes by citing Osbourn (1997) that teachers cannot shelter their students from these difficult moments, so they need to “manage conflict and not prohibit it” (p. 408). In light of this, Arao and Clemens (2013) refer to safe spaces as brave places, emphasizing risk-taking in a safe environment. Their optimal classroom environment for difficult dialogues, their brave place, has five main components:

In their Teaching controversial issues: A professional development pack for teachers, Council of Europe (2016) identified three types of competences teachers need to address controversies in class effectively. Personal competencies include “awareness of one’s own beliefs and values” and “the potential impact of these on one’s teaching of controversial issues”, and the “awareness of and self-reflection on the pros and cons of revealing one’s own beliefs and values to students” (p. 25). Theoretical competencies involve “understanding how controversy arises and the ways it is resolved in democracy” and “understanding the role of teaching about controversial issues in education for democratic citizenship and human rights education” (p. 25). As for the practical competencies, teachers need to be able to use “a range of teaching roles” and take stances according to the circumstances, to manage “controversial subject matter sensitively and safely through the implementation of appropriate teaching techniques”, to “present issues fairly”, to “handle spontaneous questions and remarks of controversial nature with confidence, turning them into positive teaching opportunities” and to “co-operate with stakeholders over the introduction and teaching of controversial issues” (p. 25).

As Griffin and Ouellett (2007) point out in Teaching for diversity and justice, teachers who embark on dealing with such issues need to be facilitators. As they put it, “facilitation focuses on active engagement, cognitive, affective and kinaesthetic, […] and assumes that participants have valuable knowledge and expertise from which both peers and teachers can learn” (p. 89). Facilitators thus need to “share control”, “invite participants to take an active part in class activities” and “incorporate pedagogical strategies that shift the classroom focus away from facilitator expertise to participant-centred learning” (p. 89). In this type of environment, teachers need to be able “to think on [their] feet” and “learn from new situations” (p. 90). They also claim that facilitators of social justice courses need to be able to find support and trust their support system (to discuss issues, receive help or “commiserate when things do not go as planned”) (p. 90), have passion and believe in the importance of dealing with such issues, be aware of the issues around them, have rich knowledge of them and also have the skills to facilitate their courses. To summarise their role, it was suggested by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (2017) that facilitators are there to make the dialogues easier by

 

One of the solutions offered is diffusing conflict before it has started by arousing the students’ curiosity: by helping them explore the nature of the disagreement, challenge their own stances, review their own positions and be comfortable with uncertainty students can be led to a path where they profit from successful disagreement. Referring back to the ground rules agreed upon at the beginning of the course can facilitate this. The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (2017, p. 43) offers some solutions for helping students seek complexity over conflict: