Snowflakes: American Universities and the Free Speech Debate
Last week, prominent white nationalist Richard Spencer made the news once again. His publicity often comes from speaking at universities, this time the University of Florida. Despite his racist ideas, he cited free speech: he must be allowed to come, or the college would be guilty of obstructing his freedom. Protestors yelled, students left the town, and violence and conflict ensued.
To many American cities, this is not new. Richard Spencer and his contemporaries, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, and others, have caused controversy for their speeches, specifically those given at universities. Students, faculty, and many uninvolved citizens consider it an outrage, especially with the alt-right growing and Nazism rising from the darkest depths of the American public. But to many, it was just some men exercising their right to free speech. “So what if their views are wrong?” they said. “You can’t stop them from speaking just because they don’t agree with you.” How did this become a divisive issue?
The left, especially college-age millennials, have been criticized for being overly sensitive. When describing the situation, discussions are plastered with the phrases “special snowflakes,” “safe space,” and “trigger warning.” Let’s break those ideas down. “Snowflakes” is a term the more extreme right sometimes use to refer to liberals. It means that leftists think they’re special and unique — thus “snowflake” — and deserve special, extremely careful treatment. A “safe space” is a place where a person feels secure expressing themselves. This can mean almost anything, but at worst means creating a sheltered, single-minded community where no one is opposed and no one disagrees. And finally, “trigger warning” refers to labeling an event, idea, or term with a warning that some people may be upset by it. These words are often used hand-in-hand to communicate the image of immature, controlling PC police, dedicated to making sure nobody’s feeling are hurt.
While I definitely feel that that is a hugely exaggerated characterization, there are still questions to be answered. What do this terms really mean in this context? How much can controversial topics be censored? And should members of the alt-right and other extreme groups be allowed to speak in public and at universities?
The problem with criticizing safe spaces is that they are often useful if implanted in a moderate, reasonable manner (as they usually are). I don’t believe that you shouldn’t be allowed to disagree. But what about survivors of abuse and violence, minorities, the physically and mentally ill, and the disabled? Public arenas should be a safe place for them to voice their opinions and grievances. While you can’t run after people who behave in a rude or biased way, I don’t see why bigotry should be seen as acceptable public behavior. We’ve seen students removed from fraternities after chanting racial slurs, and people suspended from or losing their jobs because of similar comments. When an offense becomes so serious that it’s creating an atmosphere of intolerance and becomes detrimental to a community, it should be stopped.
The same goes for trigger warnings. Someone with PTSD, for example, has the right to be warned when graphic images or disturbing situations are shown on television. This is standard practice in the media. So if an extremely upsetting topic is going to be discussed or portrayed in classes or speeches, for example abuse, violent crime, and dangerous behavior, students who can be adversely affected by this also have a right to be warned. At worst, it’s annoying, but at best, it can be a lifesaver for someone with a mental disorder or anyone who has gone through a traumatic experience. This doesn’t mean we must stay silent — we need to speak about what’s important. It just means letting people know what they’re about to hear or see.
But what about when it comes to race and political opinions? To me, the preservation of safe spaces is a non-issue. If a student knows that someone like Richard Spencer is going to give a speech, they have the simple choice of staying home that day, or if there are no violent protests, going to classes as usual. The more important discussion here is whether these people deserve a platform. When you let a member of the alt-right or white nationalists speak, you are allowing them to spread their ideas. Just to give a short overview of the gravity of the situation, here are are some examples. Richard Spencer advocates a white-only nation, and supports “gentle ethnic cleansing.” Milo Yiannopoulos described feminism as “vindictive,” “nasty,” and “man-hating,” saying “deeply physically unattractive” women join the movement. Ben Shapiro has his own so-called news website that is, even from an objective point of view, extremely biased and oftentimes racist.
In the end, a university is a place of community and higher learning. It is where our youth grow up. If these people do not voice their opinions at universities, they can continue to voice them elsewhere — their free speech is not being transgressed. I support common-sense censorship: stop only what hurts others. If a university decides to allow people like these to speak on their grounds, they must keep in mind their moral responsibility to keep everyone out of harm’s way. Nobody’s life will be ruined by hearing someone who disagrees with them, but what about when a young person commits a hate crime, decides to embrace Nazism, or comes to the conclusion that certain groups of people aren’t equal to him or her? It’s rare, but when we give a platform to racists, sexists, and maybe even fascists, it can happen.
When it comes to opinions, truth is everything. So I’ll be honest: I’m not entirely sure if white nationalists, misogynists, anti-Semites, Islamophobes, and other bigots should be allowed appearances at colleges and universities. If a university agrees to let them speak, if there will be no violence, if nobody will be directly or indirectly forced to listen, then maybe. But my question is, why is it necessary? Why is it considered a breach of free speech when an organization, public or private, simply tells them to say whatever they want elsewhere? I will never advocate forbidding free speech. Don’t overtly harm others, and you will not be stopped. However, people have the right to choose who they invite, and in fact give the honor of, speaking before them. When discussing democracy, we often look back to Greece or Rome, but their orators and politicians spoke with pride and dignity. Yes, their views were definitely different, but would a vulgar, lying, disparaging speaker be encouraged?
A brain left unchallenged will quickly turn to stone, and if students want to truly learn, then they should be prepared to face disagreement they might find offensive. However, this is on a different level. Let a Republican debate a Democrat, or let us hear the opposing sides of the most important issues of our day. But the ideas of these men have been deemed unacceptable by the vast majority of humans. Why should that change? When a society decides that a certain way of speaking or behaving does nothing but harm, we don’t allow it to continue. And if Germany itself refuses to allow Nazi symbols, who are we to say it is a good thing to let the most despicable parts of our nation’s history reappear?
Sources:
“Free speech at American universities is under threat.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 12 Oct. 2017, www.economist.com/news/united-states/21730156-fears-pandemic-snowflakery-are-overwrought-free-speech-american-universities .
Daniel Lombroso and Yoni Appelbaum. “'Hail Trump!': White Nationalists Salute the President-Elect.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 21 Nov. 2016, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/ .
Coaston, Jane. “The Hollow Bravery of Ben Shapiro.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/opinion/ben-shapiro.html .
Image: Brian Branco, Getty Images.
Note: The article I found on Milo Yiannopoulos is too graphic for a school newspaper. Therefore, I will not link to it, but rather credit CNN, Bryce Urbany (video), and Dan Lieberman (story).
