NYU Should Offer Alternative Platform for Controversial Speakers
February 24, 2017
With the recent protest during Gavin McInnes’s visit to NYU and the postponement of Lucian Wintrich’s upcoming talk due to safety concerns, an intense debate has arisen over whether to allow controversial speakers on campus. Many cite these speakers’ histories of inflammatory language and hateful comments as reasons to oppose them coming to campus. This concern is valid and the most recent platforms offered to these speakers do not provide a space for constructive discussion with students. However, rather than completely disregarding controversial speakers, it is possible to offer them an alternative platform that would allow for conversation and the sharing of ideas.
When inviting a speaker to campus, an organization must consider public opinion, history of violence, discussion topics and the type of speech that the speaker encourages. Inviting a controversial speaker like McInnes or Wintrich to simply lecture his or her opinions does not allow students to respond. A public forum or panel setting that allows audience participation would be more beneficial and informative for students. Such a setting would allow for the speaker to share his or her ideas, no matter how controversial these may be, and also receive questions or feedback in a civil setting. This dynamic would be more constructive — students would be able to better understand the speaker’s perspective. A one-sided speech forces students to consent to provocative ideas without a chance to contribute to the conversation.
This alternative platform would achieve a compromise between those who protest inflammatory speakers and those who want to hear them speak. Rather than providing an unadulterated platform to voices that have purposefully and adversarially stirred up controversy, the administration should temper these voices with thoughtfulness and moderation. This is not a silencing of dissenting opinions; this is defusing tension and encouraging discussion between opposing ideologies.
Nothing is gained by allowing provocative public figures to stir up unrest on campus. Providing a platform for civil discussion and the exchange of ideas would bridge the gap. Freedom of speech is important, but equally important is fostering an environment in which this freedom can be exercised constructively and without harassment from either side.
Email the WSN Editorial Board at [email protected].
Jess • Feb 26, 2017 at 7:43 pm
I don’t know who the omnipotent “you” are or why you equate institutionalized racism with legislation but you are welcome to contact Black Lives Matter for further information. While you leave the rock under which you live, if you are an NYU student, I would strongly recommend you to demand your tuition back.
Happy skippy • Feb 26, 2017 at 11:56 am
Jess can you please provide some examples of institutionalized racism so that we can change the laws that enable them?
Jess • Feb 25, 2017 at 4:05 am
Wendy, I love your ridiculous rant. My favorite sentence is “If you allow an opposing opinion to get you so irate, it only shows you hold fragility in your beliefs.”
You probably don’t realize but we engage with opinions within a broader sociopolitical context.
You and your friends promote the “opinion” that Muslim people (including NYU students) are dangerous terrorists while the US is constantly bombing the Middle East and arbitrarily denying entry to the country to citizens of a number of countries with predominantly Muslim populations.
You and your friends promote the “opinion” that trans people are sick and insane and they should not be “tolerated” while trans people are economically marginalized and they carry a much higher risk of physical violence than cisgender individuals.
You and your friends promote the “opinion” that feminism is bad for the society while women are still systematically paid less for the same jobs.
You and your friends promote the “opinion” that it is fine to discriminate against black people while there is institutionalized racism in the US, ranging from disproportional poverty and incarceration rates to the resurgence of the KKK.
These “opinions” legitimize and encourage the social inequality and violence in the US. Many students take action against that not because they “hold fragility in [their] beliefs” or they are infantile. On the contrary, they realize what it means to give platform to these “opinions” and how it affects their everyday lives.
Ahmad B • Feb 24, 2017 at 3:42 pm
If you define transphobia as a belief that is worthy of tolerance, you are clearly speaking from a position of privilege. Thank you for demonstrating your inability to defend this ridiculous claim and not wasting any more of my time. Have a wonderful life!
wendy • Feb 24, 2017 at 11:35 am
I would’ve liked to debate with you, Ahmad, yet you speak of me showing privileged views without knowing me. I do not debate with people who use ad hominems, as it shows incompetence. You may make the argument that I did the same, but the difference is that the left continually exhibit the behavior I mention, rendering it accurate. Therefore, you’re dismissed. Have a blessed day and learn tolerance for ALL beliefs. 🙂
Ahmad B • Feb 24, 2017 at 8:37 am
Thank you for sharing your privileged view, Wendy. People like Gavin McInnes, who openly advocates for discrimination against trans individuals, do harm the most disenfrenchised communities within and beyond NYU. Trans people do not have the luxury to ignore McInnes, people like him increase their likelihood of getting murdered or raped. If they do fear such “opinions,” they are correct.
If there is anything degrading, it is the NYU Republicans inviting violent trolls instead of intellectuals interested in genuine conversation. Moreover, campus talks provide these trolls with legitimacy, allowing them to further their violent agendas. Personally, I don’t mind them coming to the campus but I do agree that instead of lecturing (on topics in which they have no expertise), they should be engaging in conversation.
wendy • Feb 24, 2017 at 7:36 am
At the end of the day, these controversial speakers are not at fault for the sensitivity of left-winged liberals. When someone says something you don’t like you can just ignore it. I understand that some things CAN be triggering. However, as college students, we take triggering and sensitivity a little too seriously. We are university students living in reality. Why do we need to be sheltered as if we were in a daycare? The mere insinuation that left-wingers want to be infantilized is degrading to THEMSELVES.
Instead of offering an alternative platform to the speaker who hasn’t done any harm to you, your family or in almost all cases, ANYONE, let’s tell our fellow embryonic college students that they can easily boycott the event. Although clearly, this is too logical for liberals to understand.
When you say, “Nothing is gained by allowing provocative public figures to stir up unrest on campus.” you’re correct. Nothing is gained because they are not the ones who cause the unrest on campus, it is the intolerant left who causes the unrest. Observe the behavior of the speakers and those who choose to listen to them versus the ones who “peacefully” protest the events. I’m sure that EVERY time, it’s been the left who decided it was appropriate to throw a tantrum because of their fear of dissenting opinions.
The only alternative option needed is to learn respect and ACTUAL tolerance. If you allow an opposing opinion to get you so irate, it only shows you hold fragility in your beliefs.