Using alternative definitions of terminology is disingenuous.
A "safe space" is a place where certain speech and actions are prohibited, and people considered likely to participate in them are excluded. This, of course, is true everywhere, but in a "safe space" these restrictions are stronger.
The university enforces a certain code of conduct globally, prohibiting clear abuses. When they prohibit safe spaces, they are saying that their standards of conduct should be sufficient, and that defining a stricter standard is not acceptable because at that point it would be considered censorship and exclusion.
Universities are places where unpopular points of view must be entertained and debated. Expressing or advocating unpopular or unpleasant points of view is not against university codes of conduct—nor should it be. But must it then also be the case that associations of students cannot limit hostile discussion in smaller settings?
Topics like the Israeli occupation of the West Bank or the efficacy of sexuality conversion therapy are things that can and should be debated in the university as a whole, but is it really the case that an association of Jewish or gay students must entertain hostile discussions of these topics in their private meetings?
Consider the entirely reasonable passage in the UoC Student Manual [0]: The ideas of different members of the University community will frequently conflict, and we do not attempt to shield people from ideas that they may find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even offensive. Nor, as a general rule, does the University intervene to enforce social standards of civility. There are, however, some circumstances in which behavior so violates our community's standards that formal University intervention may be appropriate. The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.
That clearly says the University will not police the content of debates, without implying that "safe spaces" are prohibited.
Well could said association not allow or reject said hostile discussions without requiring the official and overt intervention of the University itself?
A "safe space" is a place where certain speech and actions are prohibited, and people considered likely to participate in them are excluded. This, of course, is true everywhere, but in a "safe space" these restrictions are stronger.
The university enforces a certain code of conduct globally, prohibiting clear abuses. When they prohibit safe spaces, they are saying that their standards of conduct should be sufficient, and that defining a stricter standard is not acceptable because at that point it would be considered censorship and exclusion.