Even so, Henderson agrees that Spencer should speak. However, with the invitation extended the university has a strong responsibility.
The goal should be to give Spencer space to speak, but to deny him control of the time, place and manner in which the speech takes place, and to prevent the violence attendant at his other speeches from happening in Ann Arbor.
The university also needs to make as clear as possible how awful Spencer’s ideas are with smart but aggressive counter-programming. Invite other speakers to speak back to his message. Organize – preferably with students – robust events that show the power of town-square-style competition of ideas.
Whatever happens, the university cannot let Spencer have the spotlight alone.
But…
The university has a dismal record of upholding this responsibility. The campus is already tense for minority students because of racist incidents. Spencer’s rhetoric would likely embolden these perpetrators. In addition the university has a record of twisting free speech to crack down on dissenting speakers, such as during the civil rights and women’s rights movements.
If the university is going to be tolerant of speech as offensive and intimidating as Spencer's, it had better be sure that it is doing all it can to protect speech equally – more so than other institutions, perhaps, because of its call to principled, open and vigorous debate.
It hasn’t always done that in the past. And it hasn't ensured that the students who'll feel victimized by Spencer's speech also feel like the university has their back.
The Spencer speech is an opportunity to recommit, and to excel to a space where diversity of thought and reason, as well as diversity of ethnicity and class, are respected for everyone on campus.
No comments:
Post a Comment