NYU Should Offer Alternative Platform for Controversial Speakers

NYU+Should+Offer+Alternative+Platform+for+Controversial+Speakers

WSN Editorial Board

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].