This past Saturday evening, I was very happy to see my University of Arizona Wildcats beat The Oregon Ducks. I still have a soft spot on my heart for my alma mater, that is, until they get looney and it stands to reason that they have.

The University of Arizona recently issued a faculty guide on how to make a classroom a “safe space”. The guide includes strategies for faculty and for students on practicing diversity and creating positive dialogue in the name of creating a “safe space” for students. The guide-all 20 pages of it-can be read in its entirety here. We’ll sum it up in a few shorts for you.

One of these situations deemed unacceptable by this “Diversity and Inclusiveness in the Classroom” document is:

• a heterosexual students (SIC) claiming that LGBTQIA+ individuals do not have a right to exist, using their religion to justify this claim.

So, according to this, those who belong to a religion that does not condone a LGBTQIA+(w,x,y and z) lifestyle are not permitted to condemn other students. Noted. Does this include the Muslim population or is this just aimed at Evangelical Christians? Because, we are supposed to embrace Islam, right? The (very anti-gay) religion of peace.

The document gives guidance on how to mitigate cultural and personal understandings. For example, the “fishbowl discussion”, where a select group of individuals is placed in the middle of the circle while all others who do not represent the group discuss and ask questions of the folks in the center. Because nothing says “diversity” like talking all of your African American students, all of your LGBTQ students, your men versus your women and separating them, singling them out as different and making them the focal point surrounding them by everyone else! You don’t like the “fishbowl” exercise? Here’s another brilliant idea: you can separate them into four corners of the room! And when that does not work, you could provide Personal and Group Affirmation by using and “Oops/Ouch” approach:

Oops/ouch
If a student feels hurt or offended by another student’s comment, the hurt student can say “ouch.” In acknowledgement, the student who made the hurtful comment says “oops.” If necessary, there can be further dialogue about this exchange.

The guide also explains in detail how to deal with microaggressions, microinsults and microinvalidations. One must tippy-toe and tread lightly when asking about the part of town someone is from, one must be mindful of another’s race when asking assistance of his or her abilities on a subject (even if they prove to excel at that ability). The guide frowns upon not respecting correct gender pronouns (even though a student/faculty member may be unsure of which one to use) and urges the use of caution even when it comes to wording sample questions/problems to avoid stereotyping and/or cultural appropriation.

So, my guess is that a problem starting with “Kimiko had three pieces of sushi” is too stereotypical in wording. After all, Kimiko is Japanese as is sushi but one cannot assume Kimiko eats sushi because she is Japanese. So…maybe we can use the name “Jane”. But Jane is practicing cultural appropriation, according to the Lena Dunham school of thought and eating sushi! And, we can’t use a name like Jane because that would implicate that only white people eat sushi.

Harkening back to my college days, I remember doing the two-step in the desert town of Tucson. We’ve gone from low places to safe spaces:

With craziness like this churning out of the Old Pueblo, it makes me think that some of these people the desert waaaaayyyyy too long. It’s as painful as banging your head against a giant Saguaro. Bear Down, red and blue!