It&#x27;s reciprocal, which is the real thing missing from the collegiate-type &quot;safe space&quot;, which only flows to certain people. You need to be able to disagree, and, reciprocally, when disagreed with you need to handle that gracefully, or <i>you</i> aren&#x27;t doing your job. You not only get your feelings taken into account, but you must equally take other feelings into account. You&#x27;ve got rights, but you&#x27;ve also got responsibilities too.<p>Contrariwise, the collegiate-style safe space makes it so that the certain people have boundless rights to be offended, but no corresponding responsibilities to consider other&#x27;s feelings. In a team context this leads straight back to exactly the failing the article is primarily about, one person&#x2F;group speaking a great deal more than the other.<p>(And please do not insult my intellectual integrity by claiming that collegiate-style safe spaces are supposed to be safe spaces for everybody. That is transparently false, to the point that you are just discrediting yourself if you try to claim otherwise. It is abundantly obvious who they are for and who they are aggressively not for.)