The political climate on campus is as red-hot as ever. As the culture war surges on, we are likely to see more of what happened last year — divisive speakers like Michael Knowles, screenings of films like the Daily Caller’s “Damaged” and the spread of incendiary, regressive rhetoric out of groups like Young Americans for Freedom.
Last year, YAF’s poster campaign featured phrases such as “The transgender movement harms women,” “Men shouldn’t be in women’s bathrooms” and “Gaza hates gays and gals.”
In response to the campaign, Students for a Democratic Society said to “demand that the U cut sponsorship of this violent right-wing student organization.”
Socialist student organization Mecha said, “We demand the university remove all hate groups like YAF.”
YAF’s statements are horrific, bigoted and patently offensive. Still, they need to be allowed on campus. In a university setting, free exchange of ideas must come first, no matter how distasteful the ideas may be.
Students must stop calling for the banning or suppressing of student groups they disagree with. We cannot rely on censorship to achieve social change. In a rare move, university administration is correct. The answer is more speech, not less.
Hate Speech or Free Speech?
The most common argument for banning statements like YAF’s is that their words constitute hate speech, not protected free speech. This can be compelling. The U.S. Supreme Court has set a precedent that certain speech can be curtailed if it presents a clear and present danger.
Here’s the thing, though — “clear and present danger” does not mean hate speech. It means speech that is intended to result in a crime and has a good chance of actually inciting a crime. The films YAF puts on are certainly offensive, but one would be hard-pressed to argue they are attempting to incite criminal activity.
Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah, said, “What is hate speech to one person may be a strong opinion in the eyes of another person.”
Public universities are required to respect the First Amendment, even when people like Michael Knowles come to town. It is against the law for college administrators to decide which speakers students can invite to campus. If a university usually allows students to host speakers using campus resources, they cannot refuse to because the speaker is offensive, controversial or even hateful.
We must not call for the university to ban YAF. That breaches the bounds of activism and becomes authoritarianism.
Avoid Hypocrisy
To be clear, my critiques of the left are a labor of love. When my peers call for bans on other student groups, I am deeply alarmed. Censorship is against our shared values.
I have been involved with progressive organizing for years. I attended many of Mecha’s earliest rallies last school year. I still vehemently believe Mecha’s sponsorship should be reinstated.
I don’t defend YAF’s right to speak because I want their beliefs to be propagated. I defend their right to speak because the student right to speak is universal.
University Restrictions
Progressive students are also feeling the heat of resistance to expressive speech.
The issue here manifests as conflicts with administration, rather than calls from other students.
Sebastian Miscenich from Students for a Democratic Society said, “What’s happening is people trying to advertise a queer pool party with washable sidewalk chalk and getting detained by the police. That happened to one of our members.”
The U’s Policy 1-007 specifies that posters cannot be attached to trees, buildings or walls that are not approved for posting. It also rules that messages or slogans cannot be painted or written on sidewalks.
The U should abolish or seriously reform the restrictions on expressive speech outlined in Policy 1-007. The policy is currently wielded in a way that shuts down much of the student political speech on campus.
I spoke to Dr. Hollis Robbins, who was the dean of the College of Humanities at the time of our interview. She has since resigned, and returned to her tenured position in the English department. She stressed the history of the student free speech movement. In the beginning, students on both sides of the aisle stood together in demanding free speech protections.
“In the 1960s, civil rights protesters and the Young Americans for Freedom were on the same side against the institution, saying, ‘You’ve got to let us do this,’” she said.
What we need is to keep this spirit alive today. The repression of student speech is wrong. The U has no business telling us what to think or what to say.
No matter how ugly things get, the answer is still more speech, not less.
