8
Thursday, April 29, 2021
Collegian.com
Rhetoric doesn’t have to harm: The impacts of speech on campus By Abby Vander Graaff & Lauryn Bolz @csucollegian
Editor’s Note: ‘Campus in Contention’ is an editorial series by The Collegian staff that examines conflicts in our community surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion and proposes solutions for how we can move forward. This article contains terms that may be triggering to some audiences. If you’ve spent any time on Colorado State University’s campus — or any college campus — you’ve seen that free speech is a pillar of our higher education system. More than that, the ability to hear new ideas and debate them with other people is central not only to us growing as human beings but to the very functioning of our democracy. What happens, then, when free speech causes conflict? Over and over again, members of the CSU community have watched debates, protests and altercations take hold as controversial speakers visited campus. While free speech is a necessary and protected right, many students feel that certain types of speech are harmful, especially in efforts to strengthen diversity, equity and inclusion. This creates a fundamental irony in which students are more likely to be oppressed by free speech than liberated by it. We need to consider the implications of the contentious dialogue on campus that favors the privileged. Re-examining the way we react to the use of First Amendment rights as a defense for harming others may be the first step in driving real social change. The impacts of campus speech go beyond the intentional; speech can cause harm even when its goal was to do the opposite. We saw this most recently in the controversy over the presence of Melina Abdullah, co-founder of the Black Lives Matter chapter in Los Angeles, who spoke at the 20th annual CSU Diversity Symposium.
Less than a week before Abdullah was set to speak, Jewish community members expressed concern over her previous rhetoric in emails to the Presidential Task Force on Jewish Inclusion and the Prevention of Anti-Semitism. They cited a tweet she wrote in 2019 that expressed support for Louis Farrakhan, a religious leader who has made anti-Semitic remarks.
“What you might consider hate speech someone else might consider free speech and vice versa, and what we always want to prevent, and can within the limits of the law, is to protect people’s safety: their physical safety or the safety of their property.” JOYCE MCCONNELL CSU PRESIDENT
“Some members of our community view her as a champion of diversity, inclusion and equity values,” CSU President Joyce McConnell said in a statement on Oct. 19, 2020. “Others, particularly members of our Jewish and LGBTQ+ communities, see her invitation as undermining equal protections and lending legitimacy to figures and organizations standing in opposition to CSU values.”
In response, over 140 students and community members signed an open letter to McConnell, criticizing her for dividing the Black and Jewish communities on campus. “In the public denunciation of Dr. Abdullah, you have solidified whiteness as a standard that allows white supremacist speakers to come to campus and exercise their right to free speech without condemnation while failing to hold the same standards for one who fights for Black liberation,” the letter said. Speakers have brought controversy to CSU’s campus before in ways that impacted student safety more directly. In February 2018, a neo-Nazi group arrived on CSU’s campus the night of an event hosted by CSU’s chapter of Turning Point USA, where Charlie Kirk, TPUSA’s founder, spoke. Members of campus protested the event, including Young Democratic Socialists of America. The neo-Nazi group Traditionalist Worker Party, which is designated as a hate group by Southern Poverty Law Center, moved onto campus armed with shields, bats and gas masks, according to The Collegian. The night ended when there were altercations between the neo-Nazis and antifa, an anti-fascist group, and the police ordered a dispersal. Conflict broke out again in October 2018 when a student wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat told students of color to “go back to Africa” in an altercation following the Bernie Sanders rally that was held in the Lory Student Center. The next week, Dennis Prager visited campus. Prager is the leader of Prager University, a conservative media group known for releasing false and misleading information. Various students voiced concerns before Prager’s visit during an Associated Students of CSU senate session. TPUSA invited Prager to campus, requesting $13,999 in funding from ASCSU — $1 under the limit that requires the request be reviewed by the senate, according to a previous article from The Collegian. The article notes that students felt the use of their fees to bring Prager to campus was unjust due to his discriminatory views on women, LGBTQ+ and Muslim communities. In 2019, Kirk returned to campus with Donald Trump Jr. for a “Culture War” event. Proud Boys, labeled a general hate group by SPLC, stood outside the event amid protests led by Young Democratic Socialists of America. While each of these situations is complex and multifaceted, they
share common elements — most notably the endangerment of marginalized communities under the guise of free speech. Much debate has been raised over what the University’s role is in keeping hateful speakers at bay. According to CSU’s website, “The University celebrates, honors and respects the First Amendment and your right to free speech. However, those rights are not without limit, and it’s important to understand what constitutes protected expressive activity and what is not permitted at this public university.” Speakers can either be invited to campus through a University-sponsored event or through a registered student organization, according to Mike Hooker, director of media relations and Denver outreach. Hooker explained that for University-sponsored events such as the Diversity Symposium or Monfort Lecture Series, the department responsible for the event will determine who to invite. In these cases, the University has discretion in who comes to campus. If the event is put on by a student organization, that group has “broad latitude” to choose the speaker as long as it does not disrupt University functions or harm students, there is space available and the event follows all University policies and guidelines, according to Hooker.
“How am I supposed to sit in class when there are tanks outside, and they are putting up barricades because they are bringing in a speaker that, last year, made it so I couldn’t go out all weekend or walk around?” JAYLA HODGE FORMER CSU STUDENT AND FORMER COLLEGIAN OPINION EDITOR
He also noted that the University may not prohibit a speaker from coming to campus due to a viewpoint, as they are protected under the First Amendment. “I know that hate speech is hurtful, and I mean that in a very profound way,” McConnell
said. She explained that we have a responsibility to engage in inclusive discourse and to try to move forward. “What you might consider hate speech someone else might consider free speech and vice versa, and what we always want to prevent, and can within the limits of the law, is to protect people’s safety: their physical safety or the safety of their property,” McConnell said. “What we can do when people are being harmed by speech and feel harmed is really be there to support them in multiple different ways.” The American Civil Liberties Union notes that while potentially harmful speech is protected under The Constitution, it is necessary and more impactful for universities to address the root causes for why this type of speech exists in the first place. Impacts and solutions The fact remains that the conflicts these events seem to bring have a serious impact on students. Jayla Hodge, the opinion editor at The Collegian from 2018-19, was not able to write about her own experiences during the 2018 Kirk event for her own safety and at the discretion of The Collegian’s management at the time. She spoke out eight months later when Prager was brought to campus, an event that she felt echoed what happened earlier in the year. According to the column Hodge wrote, the neo-Nazis’ presence on campus caused University personnel, accompanied by armed police officers, to escort her and other Black students to the Black/African American Cultural Center office. “We were told we hadn’t done anything wrong, but it was unsafe for us to leave,” Hodge said in her column. “Together, we stood shocked and nervous. Employees told us they could not force us to stay in the room, but they did not recommend we go.” Hodge believed Kirk’s presence created a space for white supremacists in the community to come out of the woodwork. “I was terrified because these people live here, they are among us (and) they are walking around bold as day right now, but they also walk around every day in the crowd,” Hodge said in an interview. “Now, I have to be aware that I don’t know who is around me, and I don’t feel safe anymore in my day-to-day.” Not only was this a threat to Hodge’s physical safety, but it also affected her emotional state and her schoolwork.
>> continued on page 9
