THE CAMPUS WAR AGAINST

CONTROVERSIAL SPEAKERS
BY KIRAN PANDEY

What has become of the modern American university? Once bulwarks of diverse thought and dissenting opinions,
college campuses of the 21st century have fallen prey to the radical censorship of political correctness. All too often
students and faculty attempt to shut down controversial speakers, and because of the general left-leaning bias of
universities, such suppression of speech disproportionately silences conservatives. This vendetta against certain speakers
reflects the larger campus free speech crisis, which universities must apprehend by recommitting to one of the core
purposes of higher education: to challenge with opposing viewpoints. Therefore, universities across America must
implement a content-neutral speaker security policy and enact harsher punishments for those who contravene the First
Amendment, reaffirming the necessity of diverse voices to maintain a healthy democracy.

DISINVITATION INCIDENTS

Since 2000, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a non-profit, non-partisan group founded to
protect civil liberties in academia, has tracked attempts to disinvite speakers from college campuses in the United States.
FIRE categorizes disinvitation incidents by unsuccessful disinvitation attempts and successful disinvitations. The latter
grouping comprises formal disinvitations, withdrawals by the speaker in the face of disinvitation demands, and heckler’s
vetoes (such as threats of violence and attempts to shout down the speaker). While this research is not exhaustive, FIRE
confidently states that “this data accurately documents a culture of censorship on college campuses over the last 15
years.”1

Disinvitation Incidents, 2000-2017

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

From the Left From the Right N/A

 In recent years, FIRE reported an alarming increase in disinvitation incidents, especially those from the left of the
speaker. (Instead of classifying the incidents by the speaker’s political beliefs, FIRE denotes disinvitation attempts as coming
“from the left of the speaker” or “from the right of the speaker.”) 2016 saw an all-time high for such attempts, and in 2017,
FIRE recorded 35 disinvitation incidents: four from the right, and 30 from the left.2

While these numbers may not seem significant in comparison to the hundreds of American universities, they
clearly denote a strong, growing bias against speakers on the right. When one considers the small number of conservative
speakers to begin with, these disinvitation attempts become even more concerning. An analysis of the commencement
speakers of the top 30 universities and the top 30 liberal arts colleges as ranked by U.S. News and World Report revealed
that, while 25 Democrats spoke, no clearly aligned Republicans did.3 Another analysis of U.S. News’s top 100 schools found
that, in the pool of graduation speakers, liberals outnumber conservatives four to one.4

Moreover, the most controversial disinvitation attempts almost always target right-wing speakers. Violent protests
met political scientist Charles Murray at Middlebury College. Riots broke out when political commentator Milo
Yiannopoulos came to speak at the University of California, Berkeley. Protesters assaulted actor Gavin McInnes with pepper
spray at New York University.5 Students turned their backs to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos at the University of
Baltimore. Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro faced multiple attempts of campus removal from Marquette University,
the University of Utah, and Concordia College.6 All of these incidents occurred in 2017, all against speakers from the right.
The list goes on and on.

On August 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania State University had its own brush with speaker controversy when President
Eric Barron refused the request of a Georgia State University student to host infamous white supremacist Richard Spencer.
He offered the following rationale for denying Spencer the platform of University Park:

“The First Amendment does not require our University to risk imminent violence. After critical
assessment by campus police, in consultation with state and federal law enforcement officials, we have
determined that Mr. Spencer is not welcome on our campus, as this event as this time presents a
major security risk to students, faculty, staff and visitors to campus. It is the likelihood of disruption
and violence, not the content, however odious, that drives our decision.” 7

Since then, the Georgia State student sued Penn State, claiming a violation of First Amendment rights.8 In all
fairness, this denial does not entail such an infraction. Spencer does not have the right to a public platform, and Penn State
policy AD02A states that “non-University officials may not use University facilities…unless they are sponsored by a
registered student organization or a University academic or administrative unit.”

However, President Barron’s justification for barring Spencer remains problematic. By citing potential violence as
the deciding factor, President Barron sets a dangerous precedent for the curtailment of controversial speech. After all, we
have seen that college students generally perceive today’s most controversial opinions to come from the right, so future
limitations based on the violence of hecklers will only continue the disturbing trend of silencing conservative thought.

THE CAMPUS CRISIS OF FREE EXPRESSION

Such censorious reactions to right-wing speakers are symptomatic of a larger free speech crisis across American
campuses. A 2017 Brookings Institute survey found that 53% of U.S. undergraduate students would rather “prohibit certain
speech or expression of viewpoints” than allow “speech that is offensive or biased against certain groups of people.”9 And
it’s no wonder that, in a 2017 Gallup/Knight Foundation survey, 61% of college students agreed that “the climate on [their]
campus prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.”10

Disallowing speakers based on potential reaction will only marginalize the voices of conservative students and
fashion a bubble of “politically correct” ideas. For universities to reclaim their position as leaders of American thought, they
must combat this oppressive climate and challenge the notion that visiting speakers are purveyors of violence. In the vast
majority of disinvitation cases, the speakers do not advocate or perpetrate violence; rather, the opposition that rallies
against them does. When facing the threat of violence, universities must not shirk their duties. By bowing to the
intemperate promises of protesters, they entertain fascistic attempts to quash opposing viewpoints and tread a very
dangerous line.

Therefore, it is in the best interest of universities to ensure that conservative speakers are heard, no matter how
controversial. Institutes of higher education must maintain a vested interest in diversity of thought, thereby protecting their
ideological integrity for generations to come.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Universities must implement content-neutral security policies for campus speakers, thereby eliminating the
argument that a speaker cannot come to a campus because he or she presents a danger to the student body. While
universities may charge a flat fee for all speakers, they must provide any costs for additional security measures if deemed
necessary.

Current Penn State policy dictates that if the University’s allotted budget is unable to fully fund security costs for
visiting speakers, “it will deny any requests from registered student organizations or academic/administrative units for any
additional speakers that would result in the University incurring additional security costs in that fiscal year in excess of
normal and ordinary costs.”11 However, this policy discriminates against controversial speakers, as those costs merely
indicate the level of controversy generated by the content of their speech. In Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement
(1992), the Supreme Court ruled that organizations cannot charge different groups varying fees based on the potential
reaction to their speech:

“Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation.…Speech cannot be

financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a
hostile mob.…The Court has held time and time again: ‘Regulations which permit the Government to
discriminate on the basis of the content of the message cannot be tolerated under the First
Amendment.’”12

As a publicly funded university, Penn State must uphold the protections of the First Amendment,13 and
traditionally, it has excelled in safeguarding the rights of campus speakers. When students protested the visit of activist Bill
Ayers in 2015, Wyatt DuBois, communication director of Penn State’s law school, reaffirmed the value of differing opinions:
“Anytime you bring in someone with a viewpoint, you are going to have someone disagree with that viewpoint. We’re
trying to foster a diverse marketplace of ideas.” University spokeswoman Lisa Powers added that student groups “are free
to sponsor programs and speakers, however controversial, without censorship by the university.”14 Because of this record,
Penn State should take charge in adopting a new speaker policy that does not burden potentially controversial voices with
unfair costs, sanctifying the presence of diverse thought on campus.
 However, high costs still pose an issue. Although hecklers cannot be allowed to control speech, universities have
limited budgets, and they cannot spend all of their resources on security for controversial speakers.15 After all, the cost of
free speech has skyrocketed: the University of Florida spent $500,000 to host Richard Spencer,16 and the University of
California, Berkeley estimated price tags of $600,000, $600,000, and $200,000 to secure its campus for Ben Shapiro, Ann
Coulter, and Milo Yiannopoulos, respectively.17

Yet in spite of these inflating costs, universities have done little to nothing in response to the many disruptions and
shout-downs of the past academic year. Sometimes they will issue warnings, as did the University of California, Irvine when
members of Students for Justice in Palestine shouted down a panel of Israeli military veterans, but these amount to hollow
deterrents with no real consequences.18 Shockingly, some universities even encourage the unconstitutional behaviors of
immoderate student protesters. When a student shouted at and intimidated a speaking professor, Yale College gave him an
award and praised him as “a fierce truthteller.”19

Instead of incentivizing such despicable actions, universities must take an uncompromising stance against those
who infringe on the First Amendment rights of others. By implementing harsh penalties, they can deter any future attempts
and temper the rising costs of security. Any students who attempt to shut down speakers or threaten violence act in
opposition to one of the core values of their university. Depending on the severity of their actions, they should face
academic probation or suspension. These severe consequences will deter students from violent activity, driving down the
costs of speakers and ensuring the ability of universities to host controversial voices.

CONCLUSION

Since the times of counterculture and Vietnam War activism, public universities have served as forums for open
and public discourse, introducing and discussing the most controversial topics of the day. To retain this position at the
forefront of American thought, universities must protect controversial and conservative speakers, unimpeded by the gross
efforts of hecklers. They must implement content-neutral security policies and harsh penalizations for those who act
against the First Amendment. The price of free speech is high. But it’s a price that universities must be willing to pay. Only
by fostering a constant diversity of thought can our country prosper; only through the efforts of universities as our nation’s
strongholds of free speech can our democracy thrive.

ENDNOTES

1. "User's Guide to FIRE's Disinvitation Database." FIRE, 9 June 2016, www.thefire.org/how-to-use-the-disinvitation-

database/. Accessed 26 Mar. 2018.
2. "Disinvitation Attempts." FIRE, 2018, www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/. Accessed 26 Mar. 2018.
3. Enten, Harry. "The Disappearance of Conservative Commencement Speakers." FiveThirtyEight, ESPN Internet Ventures,
28 May 2014, fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-disappearance-of-conservative-commencement-speakers/. Accessed 9
Apr. 2018.
4. "Liberals to Outnumber Conservative Graduation Speakers 4-to-1." Campus Reform, Leadership Institute, 5 May 2016,
www.campusreform.org/?ID=7554. Accessed 9 Apr. 2018.
5. Arnold, Chelsie. "6 Conservatives Sparking Free Speech Debates on Campus." USA Today College, USA Today, 14 Mar.
2017, college.usatoday.com/2017/03/14/6-conservatives-sparking-protests-and-free-speech-debates-on-campuses/.
Accessed 9 Apr. 2018.
6. Abel, Richard. "The 5 Most Controversial Campus Speakers of 2017." Washington Examiner, 28 Dec. 2017,
www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-5-most-controversial-campus-speakers-of-2017. Accessed 9 Apr. 2018.
7. Barron, Eric J. "Richard Spencer Is Not Welcome to Speak at Penn State." Penn State, Pennsylvania State University, 22
Aug. 2017, news.psu.edu/story/478590/2017/08/22/administration/richard-spencer-not-welcome-speak-penn-state.
Accessed 26 Mar. 2018.
8. Rader, Aubree. "Penn State Sued for Prohibiting White Supremacist Richard Spencer from Speaking on Campus:
Report." Daily Collegian, collegian.psu.edu, 19 Oct. 2017, www.collegian.psu.edu/news/campus/article_5b273e7c-
b50b-11e7-b172-1f4b3c89740f.html. Accessed 26 Mar. 2018.
9. Villasenor, John. "Views among College Students Regarding the First Amendment: Results from a New Survey."
Brookings, Brookings Institution, 18 Sept. 2017, www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-
students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/. Accessed 9 Apr. 2018.
10. Jones, Jeffrey M. "More U.S. College Students Say Campus Climate Deters Speech." Gallup, 12 Mar. 2018,
news.gallup.com/poll/229085/college-students-say-campus-climate-deters-speech.aspx. Accessed 9 Apr. 2018.
11. "AD02A Supplemental Policy for Speeches, Rallies, and Demonstrations." Penn State, Pennsylvania State University, 15
Nov. 2017, policy.psu.edu/ad02a-supplemental-policy-speeches-rallies-and-demonstrations. Accessed 9 Apr. 2018.
12. "Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992)." Justia, 2018,
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/123/case.html. Accessed 26 Mar. 2018.
13. "State of the Law: Speech Codes." FIRE, 2018, www.thefire.org/in-court/state-of-the-law-speech-codes/. Accessed 9
Apr. 2018.
14. McLaughlin, Sarah. "Penn State Pushes Back against Students' and Senator's Disinvitation Demands." FIRE, 16 Mar.
2015, www.thefire.org/penn-state-pushes-back-against-students-and-senators-disinvitation-demands/. Accessed 26
Mar. 2018.
15. Dorf, Michael C. "Should Public Universities Guarantee Free Speech?" Newsweek, 22 Nov. 2017,
www.newsweek.com/should-public-universities-guarantee-free-speech-719728. Accessed 26 Mar. 2018.
16. Bauer, Meredith Rutland. "The High Cost of Free Speech on College Campuses." Common Dreams, 19 Oct. 2017,
www.commondreams.org/views/2017/10/19/high-cost-free-speech-college-campuses. Accessed 26 Mar. 2018.
17. Gecker, Jocelyn. "The Cost of Free Speech Isn't Cheap at UC Berkeley." U.S. News, U.S. News and World Report, 15
Sept. 2017, www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-09-14/uc-berkeley-under-tight-security-for-conservative-
speaker. Accessed 27 Mar. 2018.
18. Kurtz, Stanley. "Year of the Shout-Down: It Was Worse than You Think." National Review, 31 May 2017,
www.nationalreview.com/corner/year-shout-down-worse-you-think-campus-free-speech/. Accessed 9 Apr. 2018.
19. Kirchick, James. "Yale Cements Its Line in the Academic Sand by Awarding the Student 'Truthtellers' Who Bullied
Faculty." Tablet, Nextbook, 26 May 2017, www.tabletmag.com/scroll/235844/yale-cements-its-line-in-the-academic-
sand-by-awarding-the-student-truthtellers-who-bullied-faculty. Accessed 9 Apr. 2018.

FURTHER READING

Chemerinsky, Erwin. "Hate Speech Is Protected Free Speech, Even on College Campuses." Vox, Vox Media, 26 Dec. 2017,
www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/25/16524832/campus-free-speech-first-amendment-protest. Accessed 27 Mar. 2018.

Herbst, Jeffrey. "Addressing the Real Crisis of Free Expression on Campus." Newseum, 25 Apr. 2017,
www.newseuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/WhitePaper_Herbst_FreeExpressionOnCampus.pdf. Accessed 9
Apr. 2018.

Kalven, Harry, Jr., et al. Kalven Committee: Report on the University's Role in Political and Social Action. 11 Nov. 1967.
UChicago News, www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/kalverpt.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar. 2018.
Walker, Rafael. "How Canceling Controversial Speakers Hurts Students." The Chronicle of Higher Education, Chronicle of
Higher Education, 8 Feb. 2017, www.chronicle.com/article/How-Canceling-Controversial/239151. Accessed 9 Apr. 2018.