Universities should uphold free speech on their campus
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 6 votes and with 26 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I would like to argue on the topic "Universities should platform even the most controversial views". I will be in the against position. My personal position is that, though most views should be fine, there is a strong case that can be made against certain speakers and why they should not be allowed to speak on a university platform.
I am fine with free speech on these areas:
>I am fine with a Political Science class having an objective discussion on Nazism(Its messages, impacts, etc...), a literature class where they talk about a book where rape is the main focus, etc...
>I am also fine with a political/religious group booking a room to have a private discussion on their political views/religion(even have a private room to pray).
What I believe a university should do is to ensure that all students can feel as safe and be as free as possible(within reasonable grounds).
If I was a black student, I would feel unsafe if Richard Spencer was to be able to come on stage at my university to explain how he would like me to be kicked out of this country so he can have his white ethnostate.
If I was an lgbt member, I would feel unsafe if my university were to give a platform to an anti gay activist who then gets to freely proselytise their hatred among a group of their supporters.
For a more specific example, Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak on a university campus. Even though I still oppose the violent reaction that some people had towards attendees, I understand why Milo should not have been platformed in the first place. He is not an intellectual, he does not bring forward good arguments. He is simply a troll. On December 13th, 2016, Milo spoke at the University of Milwaukee, he doxxed a transgender student, video of him doxxing the student sourced below(1) and giving his name out publicly so now opening the guy up to all kinds of bullying and harrassment from his fans.
The Nobel Prize winning scientist, James Watson got stripped of his honors for making statements over race that were out of his field of expertise and highly derogatory and untrue(2). I provide a link where you can read the vile remarks he made about black people. I would be fine with him not getting a platform in a university to spew his racist rhetoric. There can be a serious, intellectual discussion on the differences between race and IQ(Are they genetics, environmental, to what degree, etc...) among actual experts within a specific academic discussion but a university should be able to refuse to platform Watson's views as he is simply making racist remarks, completely unfounded and outside his area of study.
I am fine with a Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian speaker coming to a university campus to discuss their policies etc. However, I would be very uncomfortable having a Black Supremacist get a platform to say vile things about white people.
So yeah, I am fine with most views being discussed on a university platform.
>As long as they are not racist/sexist/homophobic/etc propaganda meant to vilify a whole group of people sharing an identity.
I am fine also with people coming to campus to have a speech titled "Atheism/Christianity/Islam/etc is wrong/evil/stupid/deserves to die" so long as it is only a critique of an ideology and not "Atheists/Muslims/Christians/etc... deserve to die".
The problem is you run the risk of censoring viewpoints simply because you don't agree with them, and then hiding it under the guise of "well we think it's too controversial and it makes others afraid."
The rhetoric used in defending this viewpoint of not hosting controversial speakers is one that is rife with insinuation and falsehood. Your statement "freely proselytise their hatred among a group of their supporters." is exactly what I"m talking about.
Automatically a differing viewpoint is labeled "hate speech".....guess what...it's not. It's a different viewpoint.
I don't like what you say? I'm going to label it hate speech and shut it down. "Hate speech" strikes a nerve, but it's just a quick way to silence a viewpoint you don't like.
Just because I say "same-sex attraction" is not right, that does not make it "hate speech". It's a differing viewpoint. No more than me saying "People should not run red lights" is not hate speech against people who do run red lights.
So often speech is labeled as too harmful and hateful, when in actuality it's just a viewpoint that people don't like. And all too often university heads are t
"The problem is you run the risk of censoring viewpoints simply because you don't agree with them, and then hiding it under the guise of "well we think it's too controversial and it makes others afraid." "
The issue is not about whether its too controversial rather:
>Is it completely unfounded and aimed at dehumanising one's identity?
For example, my position is that: it is fine for experts to discuss where being gay is a product of nature or nurture. However, it is not fine for an anti gay activist to come on stage to talk about why we need to get rid of gay people.
So it is the same subject with the same degree of controversy. However, one is conducted within a proper academic framework. The other is just nonsense propaganda.
It's not about whether it makes others afraid. Rather if you are just challenging their identity as an individual, this will make certain groups of students feel uncomfortable and make them feel unsafe on campus.
A university known to platform racist/homophobes/etc is probably not going to receive many people of color, lgbt students applying to study there. Therefore, not only is the university platforming propagandists, they are also discouraging potential students and thus they stand to lose a quite substantial revenue.
"Just because I say "same-sex attraction" is not right, that does not make it "hate speech". It's a differing viewpoint. No more than me saying "People should not run red lights" is not hate speech against people who do run red lights."
You can believe same-sex attraction is not right but you should not be allowed to deliver a speech on a university campus to deliver that message. Firstly, you probably don't have the expertise to say that and secondly, there is nothing academically interesting to discuss there. You are only pushing a harmful narrative towards a minority group.
You are free to have the opinion no matter how wrong it is, you are free to say it in a public space but a university should not have to platform you for you to say it to an audience of students.
"So often speech is labeled as too harmful and hateful, when in actuality it's just a viewpoint that people don't like. And all too often university heads are t"
Telling gay people they are sinners/wrong/disgusting/etc... is harmful and hateful
>Harmful because it induces fear in them and encourages homophobes to bully and harrass them
>Hateful because that speech literally dehumanises them.
PRO has forfeited their round so there's nothing for me to respond to. I can maybe summarise my arguments:
>It is fine to discuss controversial subjects as long as they are done with an academic framework
>It is fine to criticise any religious/political ideologies
It becomes a problem only when someone is given a platform to promote untrue and harmful/hateful views
>Milo got a platform where he doxxed a transgender student and thus made that person susceptible to bullying and harassment from Milo's fans,
>James Watson got a public platform to make up racist statements about black people inferiority(Race & IQ), an area he has no expertise on and has no data to back him up
CON seemed to make only one argument that they repeated. Since they forfeited their round, I will just refute that again:
It is fine for more sincere speakers like Jordan Peterson/Ben Shapiro to speak because, even though they are factually wrong in their views, all they really do is criticise politcal ideologies or discuss policies. Those are fine.
>When you label things as hate speech, you may end up banning certain opinions just because you disagree with them and think they are harmful
When Milo is banned from campus, it is not because he is wrong(He himself recognizes that he is only trolling and most of his views are just nonsense anyway).
Rather, he is doxxing students which thus leads to a decrease in the well being of the university's student population. Having him on brings more harm than good.
Same thing for any racist/homophobic/etc person who comes on stage only to push hateful rhetoric. They induce fear in students and provide no actual contribution to the academic realm.
I have nothing else to say since PRO only brought one argument forward. I refuted it and have nothing else to say.
Since PRO forfeited their round again and I refuted their only one argument, there is nothing I can really say now.
My argument is simply that universities should not have to platform people who push harmful rhetoric that have no academic value to them. Hard conversation can and should be taking in a university however simply threatening specific individuals and making bigoted propaganda have no place on a diverse campus.
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit debate. Per the site's voting policy, full-forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side.
No worries. I was confused cause I agree with what you were saying but I thought you were trying to refute me
Sorry. I didn't mean to tag you. Refusing to platform a view like Milo's is a conscientious thing to do.
I was trying to just throw that information out there for the benefit of humanity.
There is a huge difference between Galileo saying the Sun is at the center of our galaxy and Milo Yiannopoulos doxxing a transgender student because Milo did not like what the latter had to say
If you read what I have said on this subject so far you will notice one thing: I never said we should censor unpopular or controversial opinion at all. So you are preaching to the choir here
Censoring unpopular or controversial topics is one of the reasons the Dark Ages lasted so long.
It depends on the context of why you are saying it. If you are making a sociological study, then sure. The same way it's also okay for someone to say, white males have had historically held a position of privilege that they benefit of to this day. Assuming both are factually correct, those are just facts. But if you are saying this with the intention of making prescriptive statements(Therefore we should kick black people out, White people should not be allowed on campus), then I disagree.
People still do say these things: If you look into the Evergreen scandal where Bret Weinstein stood up against the fact that white people were told to stay home and not come to campus, I oppose these students who said that. I side with Bret on this. These students should not have been given a platform and they should have been arrested for what they did later.
However, if instead these students said they wanted to make a socioogical discussion on white privilege and oppression of black people, I would support that.
People like Richard Spencer may not directly say they want black people kicked out, they are indeed obtuse with their language. But by looking at the bigger picture of all that they said, it is easy to see what their intentions are.
I don't think anyone prominent is saying all Muslims are terrorists etc. If I wanted to say Blacks were more likely to commit crime, would that be OK to say?
I am fine with ideologies/political views being discussed among actual experts, I just am not fine with someone being given a platform just to dehumanize people. If Richard Dawkins were to come to my university to dehumanise all religious people("all Muslims are terrorists", "All Catholics are pedophiles", "Jews are taking over the World",etc...) ,I would oppose him being given a platform. If he were to come just to discuss why he hates religions(Islam/ Judaism/ Christianity/etc... is dumb/violent/retarded/etc...), then I would support that. As I said, I am even fine with people being given a platform to criticise atheism.
If someone wanted to make a speech saying that being straight was the only real sexuality, he has the right to say this. If I were a priest, would I have sense in censoring Richard Dawkins from making a speech at a college campus? Historically, the right used your logic to censor people. Now it's the left that does it.
You may be unconformable with black panther calling for the enslavement of white people. If you are, then you can debate with them about their idea or you can simply leave the room. Censoring them undermines free speech.
I am referring to refusing people like Milo Yiannopoulos for eg, a stage to deliver a speech on university grounds
Technically, refusing to publish or allow certain views to be spoken or written on a college campus isn't a violation of free speech. It's like saying, "you can say what you want, but you can't do it here."
Another example is removing a person from the room for interrupting court proceedings.
Guess allowing their voices to be heard on campus.
What do you mean by platform?