The Identity of Identity Groups: Safe Space or Seeking Acceptance

Identity based student groups, (e.g. Black Law Students Association (BLSA), Women's Law Students Association (WLSA), and Outlaws (the LGBT group)) face difficult questions sometimes. On one hand, it's important that oppressed minorities to have a safe space in the school, but on the other hand, the groups are usually interested in advancing their group's position in the (in our case legal) community. This goal usually means having good relations with (and members who are) allies that support the cause but do not share the identity. At least within Michigan Law School, the groups have tended toward the latter, figuring presumably that the "allies" who want to be involved will not destroy the safe space. But I recently discovered that it's not always a given that everyone accepts this, though this sentiment usually stays hidden. (This is also separate from the question of whether a university funded identity group even has a right to be exclusive - the answer to which is likely technically no, but it's hard to imagine who would complain - if he/she wants in that badly, he/she is likely respectful of the group.)

The Appropriateness of Adjectival Nouns

Ok, so this is probably a slightly different subject from what many of my other posts will be, but I'm a huge linguistics nerd too, so I thought I'd kick it off with this, based on a discussion a few of us had a couple weeks ago.

So here's the main question: Is calling someone an "[adjective]" as a noun versus an "[adjective] person," inherently offensive labeling, or is this usage somewhat an accident of language? For example, we can all pretty much agree that calling someone a "schizophrenic" versus "a schizophrenic person" or "person with schizophrenia," is offensive, but is it always the case?