I have been coordinating a drop-in for homeless youth (mostly queer youth) for several years. We have established the space as "hate-free" (for lack of a better word), though we have not adopted a zero tolerance policy. Our thinking is that we would prefer to use moments of conflict as opportunities for engagement/education/discussion.

Another program that we work with also follows a "hate-free" model only they have worked under a guide of zero tolerance (you say one n-word you are out of there). This has been problematic for some youth, particularly some African American youth who may use the n-word as an expression of respect, or Queer youth who might use similar terms that appear to be offensive and, in their usage, are not.

Some of the people coordinating and working in the space would like to adopt our model and have more dialogue when certain terms are used. What is keeping them from moving forward is some staff who say if they take away the zero tolerance they won't be doing ant-oppression work.

It appears we have two different approaches to anti-oppression work that are in conflict:
One is attempting to educate people and start discourse by questioning the behavior.
While the other seeks to protect the space by immediately removing an punishing offenders.

Does anyone here have any thoughts that might help resolve this conflict and get everyone on the same page?

/|\