In the fall of 2020, two San Francisco State University professors invited Leila Khaled to speak at a virtual roundtable entitled “Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice and Resistance: A Conversation with Leila Khaled.” Khaled, a self-described “freedom fighter,” has hijacked two planes on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a US-designated terrorist organization. She unabashedly promotes violence, saying “When you defend humanity, you use all the means at your disposal … I chose arms and I believe that taking up arms is one of the main tools to solve this conflict in the interest of the oppressed and not the oppressors.” Facing increasing pressure, Zoom, Facebook, and YouTube refused to stream the event, citing unwillingness to sanction pro-terrorism content.
Across the country, people took stances on this issue, some praising the media platforms for preventing “hate speech,” and others decrying the censorship of a member of a marginalized group. San Francisco Hillel, an organization serving Jewish college students in the San Francisco area, penned an open letter to SFSU President Lynn Mahoney expressing its concern over “the normalization of violent rhetoric,” explaining that “seeing someone who engaged in terror be held up as a role model, we are worried about the potential for hateful or dangerous backlash.” John K. Wilson, an editor of the American Association of University Professors’ “Academe” blog, took a different view, writing, “for those on the left who demand that tech companies censor speech they think are wrong or offensive, this is a chilling reminder that censorship is a dangerous weapon that can be turned against progressives.” He also called upon colleges which use Zoom to “demand that Zoom commit to protecting free expression of academic classes and events on its platform.”
Although this event was shut down not by the college but by the tech companies, the controversy surrounding this event highlights two important campus questions: who should be invited to speak, and who gets to decide?
In today’s environment of strict partisanship, academic campuses should be looking for every opportunity to invite a diverse range of speakers, and they should be encouraging openness and dialogue, not censorship and one-sidedness. Students should have the chance to invite and decide for themselves which viewpoints they want to hear, and which they do not. There should be speeches and protests, but not protests that drown out the speeches, because growth comes from dialogue and questioning of views. Colleges themselves should stay out of the decision-making process of who gets invited and who does not. That means that people across the political spectrum, regardless of how controversial their views are, should be permitted to speak so long as they are not endorsing lawlessness or violence.
Before we continue, I would like to make two things clear: First, it is important to remember that a university or student organization inviting someone to speak does not necessarily mean that the university is endorsing that individual’s views. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I would like to clarify that I am not suggesting that clubs or universities should go looking for white supremacists and anti-Semites to come speak on campus about race and religion just for the sake of it. (I believe the vast majority of students and universities would not do that, even if it were what I was suggesting). Rather, I am suggesting that the potential of a hateful speaker coming to campus — albeit a scary possibility — is less frightening than the potential for universities to become moral arbiters in deciding whose views are “safe enough” to be heard on campus.
Many argued that inviting Khaled to campus crossed a line. But, how better can we understand the plight of those that feel that violence is the only option than to hear directly from someone in that category? Most Americans do not believe in using violence to achieve political gain, but most Americans also lack personal experience in the context in which that violence might seem necessary. Leila Khaled does not — she became a refugee as a toddler, and committed herself to armed struggle for the Palestinian cause at the mere age of 15.
However, the issue at hand is not whether one believes that they would learn something valuable from Khaled, or that they would be personally offended by her presence. Rather, what matters here is who gets to decide whether or not someone like Khaled speaks, and why. I would argue that anyone should be allowed to invite any speaker to campus, and — due to the risks of letting colleges decide who is too radical or controversial and who is not — any speaker who does not incite imminent unlawful behavior or violence should be allowed on campus.
Undoubtedly, this issue is controversial and nuanced. Students may feel exceedingly uncomfortable about the invitation of a speaker whose views they find abhorrent. But censorship and speaker discretion are slippery slopes, and potentially more harmful than hateful speech is letting colleges decide, by banning or shutting down speaking engagements, what speech should and should not be permitted. As the American Civil Liberties Union notes, “speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When we grant the government the power to suppress controversial ideas, we are all subject to censorship by the state.”
The ACLU is well-known for defending free speech, even abhorrent-but-constitutionally-protected speech. With regard to on-campus speech, the ACLU emphasizes the fact that, while “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 … merely offensive or bigoted speech does not rise to that level, and determining when conduct crosses that line is a legal question that requires examination on a case-by-case basis.” Admittedly, private universities are not bound by the First Amendment, and are free to limit speech as they see fit. But the First Amendment may provide crucial guidance for colleges in making campus speech-related decisions.
For example, the Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio concluded that inflammatory speech can only be punished if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action”. Holding to this decision prevents colleges from becoming moral arbiters, an extremely dangerous position. Allowing universities to decide which views are too controversial, or to determine the line between political and hate speech, will always upset someone. More frighteningly, it will allow colleges to tailor education to align with their viewpoints instead of encouraging independent thought and the free exchange of ideas.
Though universities should not be in the business of moral arbitration, they still do have a role in creating a safe space for their students in a way that the government does not. In order to protect the emotional — and potentially physical — well-being of students, the key when it comes to this issue should be choice: students should have the absolute choice as to whether or not they would like to be exposed to controversial extracurricular speakers and demonstrations on campus.
Perhaps there should be more nuanced rules regarding controversial marches or outdoor speakers. Maybe the policy should be that public demonstrations may only take place in certain campus areas, or at certain times. Or maybe demonstrators should simply be required to publicize the time of their event, and students may opt to stay in their dorms and either join class via Zoom or have absences excused during that time. Certainly, creating any policy which would dictate which types of events may take place in public would again place the college in the role of arbiter, which should be avoided. But care should be taken that students are never required to be exposed to these events. Policy on indoor events to which people can come or not as they choose, however, should adhere to a Brandenburg v. Ohio standard.
It should be noted that this choice should extend to rules around protesting speakers: any protest which does not affect the ability of interested students to hear the lecture should be strongly encouraged, but forms of protest that drown out the speaker should be forbidden. In ideal circumstances, a student’s right to choice should not trump a speaker’s right to free speech, and a speaker’s right to free speech should not trump a student’s right to choice.
Censorship is not the cure for polarization — dialogue is. I dream of a campus where speakers of all viewpoints, whether students or experts, feel empowered to share their opinions, and where others are free to engage with them or not, as they feel comfortable. I envision a poster advertising a lecture by Leila Khaled, and an adjacent poster advertising the protest against her speech to be held by the door. I picture a student raising their hand to push back on her view that violence is the only answer, and I picture a student listening to music in the Yard, avoiding the situation entirely. Empowerment, dissent, and choice, all exercised respectfully — this is the cure for polarization.
Image by Miguel Henriques is licensed under the Unsplash License.
