Debate Desk
Should Campuses Bar Speakers Whose Views Offend Students?
A university exists to test ideas; shouting down or barring speakers teaches students to avoid argument, and public campuses are bound by the First Amendment.
The claim
Students argue that some speakers promote hate, that their presence makes classmates feel unsafe and that a university has a duty to protect students' well-being. Banning or disinviting such speakers, they say, is an act of care.
The answer in three points
- A university's purpose is to seek truth, which requires the testing of ideas. Students learn to think by hearing views they reject and answering them. A campus that protects them from challenge sends them out less able to argue, persuade and live among people who disagree.
- Public universities are part of the government and are bound by the First Amendment. They cannot bar speakers because of their viewpoint, and the Supreme Court made clear in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) that students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate. Private universities have more latitude and should follow the same principle as a matter of their mission.
- The heckler's veto is the danger. If a group can prevent a speech by threatening disruption, then the loudest decides what others hear. A university should protect the speaker and those who wish to listen, while giving protesters room to speak in their own way.
A university that teaches students to argue well has done its job.
The numbers
- The Supreme Court decided Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District in 1969, holding that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate.
- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression publishes an annual College Free Speech Rankings, which in recent years found large shares of students reporting self-censorship.
- In December 2023, the presidents of three universities testified before Congress and were criticized for not giving a clear answer on speech about harassment, according to the House Education Committee's hearing record.
What they will say next
"Offensive speech harms students." Disagreement and discomfort are part of learning. Real threats and harassment are punishable, and the university can give support to students without censoring speakers.
"Speakers like these have platforms already." A university is not obliged to invite every speaker, and student groups choose whom to invite. The principle is that once invited, a speaker should be heard.
"Protests are free speech too." They are, and protesters can speak, sign and walk out. What they cannot do is prevent others from listening.
"Free speech protects the powerful." History shows that dissenters, minorities and reformers have relied on it most.
A student who has learned to answer an argument has gotten an education worth its price.
"Universities can set rules for events." They can set content-neutral rules about time, place and security. They cannot apply them selectively to silence a viewpoint, and the cost of security cannot be used as a veto.