Why Public Universities Should not Be Able to Ban Controversial Speakers

Accompanying the return of age-old ideologies long thought dead and buried, are the intellectuals and educated debaters that come to the defense of these nonconformist beliefs. Individuals such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, Charles Murray, and Ann Coulter are a few examples of intellectual dissent through challenging the well-established, majority-approved norms of today, e.g. social equality, etc. Though considered disruptive social pariah by a large segment of the population, and regardless of how disagreeable their positions on social issues may be, they still maintain the same civil rights as everyone else, so long as their views don’t conflict with any other constitutional principles or causes harm to others. Public universities should not be able to ban controversial speakers on the grounds that that public universities are public forums, available and accessible to anyone invited to speak; controversial speakers are protected under the First Amendment, with certain conditions attached; and lastly, courts have ruled that students also have the constitutional right to hear visiting speakers on college campuses per the First Amendment.

Firstly, a public university can be defined as “a university that is predominantly funded by public means through a national or subnational government.” In the United States, such universities are state-funded. As such, they are public spaces whose rules and guidelines are incumbent upon the state legislature, and so there are fewer rules governing public universities compared to their private counterparts. A public forum “is open to all expression that is protected under the First Amendment”. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzche, the titular character proclaims his infamous “God is dead” speech in the marketplace, a common public forum at the time, and is met with detest by the faithful: “the believers in the true faith hate you and call you a danger to the multitude.” (Nietzche) Acutely, it was not well-received by the public and was considered an extremely controversial statement to this day. In the United States, public universities are designated as limited public forums, meaning they are open to anyone and everyone from the public who wishes to share their views, with minimal restrictions in accordance with freedom of speech. From there, the few rules that do govern public universities do not prohibit anyone from participating in any school-hosted public event, such as a debate, lecture, talk etc. so long as they do not threaten or promote violence against any specific individual or group. If any individual follows the rules, and doesn’t threaten or promote violence, then they are legally permitted to speak at public universities. Therefore, banning individuals that follow the rules, from sharing their ideas in a public forum is illegal.

Secondly, public speakers are individuals that perform speeches to live audiences. They are legally allowed to deliver seminars, lectures, talks, speeches etc. in any public spaces. Public universities are public spaces. Consequently, public speakers are allowed to address public universities. Amendment I of the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” “Abridging the freedom of speech” means preventing individuals from voicing their opinions or ideas, which the government is now allowed to do. Francis Bacon’s The Four Idols mentions how the, “Idols of the Market Place are the most troublesome of all... now words, being commonly framed and applied accordingly to the capacity of the vulgar, follow those lines of division which are most obvious to the vulgar understanding.” (Bacon) Essentially, Bacon postulates that the marketplace, a public forum, makes for a terrible location in respect to the free exchange of ideas and opinions, with words being used against itself for causes of division in these bad ideas. Controversial speakers are spurned because they are seen as the propagators of these bad ideas, but the value judgements of these ideas is irrelevant to the fact that these speakers have the right to say them, as does anyone else. Public universities, as public forums, henceforth aren’t allowed to prevent some from speaking, and others from not based on value judgements, as it would be tantamount to obstructing their constitutional right to freedom of speech, a crime in and of itself. Controversial speakers, as are any orators, are covered under the freedom of speech; however, certain conditions are well-documented in the Constitution. Hate-speech, inciting violence, sponsoring terrorism, defamation, and threats are some of the categories that are not covered by this principle of freedom of speech, and are indictable offenses in an American court of law.

Lastly, from the perspective of the students attending these public universities, they have the equivalent constitutional right to hear these speakers, no matter how controversial their thoughts or ideas. Similarly, Plato’s ‘Apology’ of Socrates sheds light on this issue. When Socrates was tried and executed for “impiety” because of his unpopular ideas: “As a result of this investigation, men of Athens, I acquired much unpopularity, of a kind that is hard with and is a heavy burden.” (Plato). Controversial speakers occupy the same position as Socrates, though may differ with respect to their worldview. The youth, in this case, are the students attending these universities, that have as much right to hear what these speakers have to say, as the speakers have the right to say it. Widespread protests and public outrage against having these public figures speak at these institutions are approaching an almost violent end result do not change the fact that both speakers and the students that do wish to participate in these events have as much right to do so as the rest. The purpose of these public forums is to invite debate and disagreement in an orderly and socially acceptable fashion. If anything, the opposition is demonstrating their unwillingness to listen to the other and refute them point-by-point, instead showing a preference to being sheltered from discussing real-world issues with people who hold differing views.

Perhaps, those that hold the view that controversial speakers should indeed be banned from speaking at public universities might regard a public university’s status as a limited public forum as to entail that the final decision is left to those in the upper-echelon of a university’s administration; that these controversial speakers violate Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution; and that students ought to be protected from such hatemongering in fear that they might be negatively influenced by it. A limited public forum is a public space reserved for expressive activity, with certain limitations in place as to the subject matter or type of speaker allowed. However, speakers cannot be banned completely from delivering speeches at these public universities, as First Amendment rights are still applicable and inviolable. The argument that these controversial speakers are themselves violating the First Amendment is shallow, as it implies the speeches of controversial speakers are hate-filled before they’ve even been delivered. The invocation of the First Amendment in the case of hate speech or other conditions of the amendment, cannot be applied to ideas that an individual may or may not hold, but is suited for words or actions that fulfill these conditions and can be generally-agree upon as to belong in the category of hate speech and the like. Also, an issue with public safety has been raised, but on the part of the protestors that’ve threatened to riot in the case a controversial speaker does attend an event at a public university. This disproportion of public outcry to controversy that may arise in a public forum is uncalled for and should be addressed by a university’s administration, instead of scapegoating the speakers as the provocateurs of such hysteria in places of education.

In conclusion, the case has been made to show that public universities are not allowed to ban controversial speakers on the grounds of their personal beliefs, but may do so if their articulations are provocative of violence and aggression towards an individual or group. Otherwise, controversial speakers must be allowed to voice their opinions, no matter how radical, and by preventing that from happening, the opposition is being unrealistic in their expectation to protect students from opinions that might be disagreeable with their own. Speakers and students alike are free to exercise their constitutional right to say and hear as they would like, within the parameters Amendment I allows. Because public universities are public forums, subject to the rules and regulations of constitutional law, and as such cannot prohibit an invited controversial speaker from giving a talk, they cannot outright ban these speakers from attending.