A Rogerian Argument

In October of last year Richard Spencer, one of the leaders of the white supremacist movement, requested to speak on the University of Michigan campus. To say that there was an uproar on campus would be a vast understatement. There were protests, marches, meetings convened, and numerous opinion articles published in The Michigan Daily expressing a wide range of thoughts. One of the most vocal of these opinions was coming from a campus movement, #StopSpencer, with the goal of ensuring that he would not be allowed to share his grossly bigoted message on campus in any way. The widely held, at least most vocal, belief around campus and my social circle was in line with that. Under no circumstances should Spencer be given the space to espouse hatred on this campus. Students were outraged that this was even being considered as an option. Then, there are also those who argue that free speech is an unlimited right that should be granted, without question, to anyone with any message.

 

While some of the students who did not oppose Spencer speaking on campus probably agreed with his message, many of those students were simply advocating for the right of free speech, granted in the first amendment of the constitution, a cornerstone of our democracy. Many students felt conflicted, not because they felt he deserved any sort of respect or encouragement, but conflicted because one of the most powerful rights granted to all people in the United States is that of free speech. The two sides tend to differ over where and when that right should be limited. However, both sides of this debate can agree on one thing, free speech is not something to be undermined and the nation must remain steadfast in granting that right. The mainstream progressive argument is, while the right of free speech should be respected, as too should the rights of people who fear that certain speech puts their lives and safety at risk. The more conservative, yet still mainstream, side would argue that speech should only be limited if it is immediately causing harm and danger.

 

College campuses have been at the center of the debate over free speech in recent years. Through conversations over safe spaces and trigger warnings, universities have been under attack for “coddling” and “shielding” its students from the realities of life. Michael Bloomberg and Charles Koch, two men with vastly different political ideologies, collaborated to write an article on the importance of campus free speech. Their central argument is, “stop stifling free speech and coddling intolerance for controversial ideas, which are crucial to a college education—as well as to human happiness and progress.” Bloomberg and Koch argue that this type of campus environment is harmful to students and creates a “climate of intellectual conformity.” By creating an environment where students and professors alike are afraid to share their opinions, universities are discouraging an environment of “open inquiry, debate and true learning”.

 

The two business men go on to quote Frederick Douglas who said, in 1860, “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.” Granted, Frederick Douglas was speaking from a much different perspective in a much different time, however, the point still applies. To restrict free speech is to limit thoughtful dialogue and discourse, which is exactly what is supposed to take place on college campuses. If dialogue and discourse begin to disappear on campuses, students will be deprived of new perspectives and ideas that they would not otherwise be exposed to. That would be a detriment to everyone involved and would contribute to a lack of understanding and nuance.

 

The article written by Koch and Bloomberg is not necessarily in contrast with the consensus on college campuses, however it also does not bring awareness to many of the issues that college students face. The article negates to touch upon the rational arguments on the other side pertaining to the fear that some speech conjures up. Niraj Choksi wrote an article for the New York Times entitled “What College Students Really Think About Free Speech.” Choksi goes through a number of results from a survey on free speech on college campuses conducted by Gallup and co-sponsored by the American Council on Education, the Charles Koch Foundation and the Stanton Foundation. This survey reached over 3,000 college students with a wide range of ideological, racial, and gender divides. When posed with having to decide between free speech and inclusivity on campus, a narrow majority of those surveyed argued that inclusivity is more important than free speech. This dichotomy is fascinating as it asserts that inclusivity and free speech are in contrast with one another on college campuses.

 

Free speech is not an unlimited right, both from a legal perspective and a mostly agreed upon moral and safety perspective. ­­According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “the First Amendment does not protect behavior on campus that crosses the line into targeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students.” As a legal precedent, language that incites and encourages violence is not protected by the first amendment. That was determined in the United States Supreme Court Case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Language that incites violence and threatens the safety of others is typically easy to identify and if fairly clear cut. However, speech that leads to a “pervasively hostile environment” is incredibly ambiguous and lacks clarity. The nature of that definition is a point of contention for the two sides because they disagree over where that line is crossed. Speech that leads to a hostile environment is different for almost every single person, making it nearly impossible and up for interpretation to determine what language is illegal under that statement.

 

I speak from a place of privilege. While as a Jew I am susceptible to virulent anti-Semitism, I am also white and my Jewish identity is something that I am able to conceal if needed. People of color are not granted that same convenience. Therefore, when a white-supremacist who has preached for “peaceful ethnic cleansing” of people of color requests to come speak on a diverse campus, it is not difficult to understand the fear felt by many of the students. College campuses are supposed to be a place where students feel safe and comfortable to discuss difficult issues and embrace their identities. Students should be able to speak freely and engage with their peers and professors, and no one is suggesting otherwise. It is the job and responsibility of the university to prioritize its students’ safety and happiness and to recognize when a certain rhetoric or dialogue is going to compromise that goal.

 

Many university administrations have been forced to deal with balancing these two goals of inclusivity and openness on their campuses. As reported in an article entitled “College students support free speech—until it offends them,” by Jeffrey J. Selingo in The Washington Post, University of California at Berkeley spent over $600,000 in preparations and security when conservative writer Ben Shapiro came to speak on campus. Selingo adds that conservative speakers coming to speak on campus “resulted in protests with armed police officers reminiscent of a war zone.” Universities, akin to UC Berkeley and University of Michigan, have famously been at the center of social and political movements in this country. That history has remained true as evident by universities’ vast and large-scale protests in response to speakers on campus. When met with hateful speech, students are the first to respond with passion and words of support for students under attack, similarly practicing their right to free speech.

 

While this may seem almost ridiculously simple, the solution that I would propose to this problem is to encourage open and honest conversation among the two ideologically different groups. The current political and social climate in this country and especially on campus is only creating more division and animosity towards people with differing perspectives. Many people, including myself, are often scared to come to the table with others who have such a vastly different world view than our own. However, it is vital to understand that simple dialogue does not necessarily sacrifice anything and has the potential to change everything. I am confident that with more dialogue and openness, we will find more in common with one another than we might imagine and can move forward by paying greater attention to those commonalities rather than the issues that divide. Crucial to the success of dialogue is focus on listening. People are very quick to respond and to defend their arguments out of passion and fierceness, which is understandable yet ineffective. We will never be able to make progress if we are unable to listen. We are granted this incredible right of free speech, let us use it to share our voices and listen to those around us.

 

Bibliography

 

Bloomberg, Michael, and Charles Koch. "Why Free Speech Matters on Campus." The Wall Street Journal. May 12, 2016. Accessed September 25, 2018. https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-speech-matters-on-campus-1463093280.

 

“Brandenburg v. Ohio.” Oyez, 27 Feb. 1967, www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492.

 

Chokshi, Niraj. "What College Students Really Think About Free Speech." The New York Times. March 12, 2018. Accessed September 25, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/us/college-students-free-speech.html.

 

"College Students Support Free Speech - Unless It Offends Them." The Washington Post. March 12, 2018. Accessed September 25, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/college-students-support-free-speech--unless-it-offends-them/2018/03/09/79f21c9e-23e4-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.650940ca1c76.

 

Selingo, Jeffrey J. "College Students Support Free Speech - Unless It Offends Them." The Washington Post. March 12, 2018. Accessed September 25, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/college-students-support-free-speech--unless-it-offends-them/2018/03/09/79f21c9e-23e4-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.650940ca1c76.

 

"Speech on Campus." American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed September 25, 2018. https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus.

 

Lopez. "Why Florida Officials Are Preparing for Violence at White Nationalist Richard Spencer's Speech." Vox. October 19, 2017. Accessed September 25, 2018. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/19/16503024/richard-spencer-university-florida.