Sure they can, if they are a private school. Has someone said different? If it is a public school, then it is a different issue, because the first amendment doesn’t just apply to people who voted for your preferred presidential candidate.
The problem, of course, is that the vast, vast majority of people who are “stirring up violence in opponents” are in no way, shape or form white supremacists or nazis.
I don’t think it’s true that a public university has to accept everyone as a speaker. What if someone promoted rape? That counts as free speech and I don’t see universities accepting that speaker. Somehow Richard Spencer and some others have slipped in as being “political” when that is not what they are at all.
1960s and before you can bet there were white supremacists on college campuses claiming that “others” were hindering their rights. Was there violence against them? Nah, not usually. The violence was against minorities and their white allies and the cops usually looked the other way and the white supremacists didn’t pay for their crimes.
See for example the University of Alabama riot of 1956 when a Black student dared to enroll. After Autherine Lucy was attacked and her life threatened, she was subsequently suspended by Bama for “her safety.”
Most of our history, white supremacists were the vast majority of the citizenry so basically all campuses were a “safe space” for white supremacists.
By the way- this whole issue of “free speech” wasn’t really a practiced thing until recent history. For most of our history, speech has been relatively limited. It wasn’t until the 40s that speech became semi-deregulated and then during the 50s and 60s it was significantly restricted again.
I’d wonder why any campus organization invited a speaker that promoted rape, but that disgusting loathsome creep deserves to speak. Ugh.
@greenwitch actually Daryush Valizadeh is such a speaker and contends rape should be legal on private property. His theory is that under his proposal sexual assault would be solved instantly because women would learn to protect themselves like they do their cell phones or purses. They would no longer allow themselves to be impaired by alcohol or walk into a private room with a man because the risk would be too great. Crossing the threshold into a man’s room would be consent on private property, so they would not do it.
He runs some sort of male supremacy organization called Return of Kings and he was scheduled to speak in Canada. There was a huge backlash with the government getting involved and the hotel canceled the event for safety reasons.
I would assume colleges like other business have an annual security budget. It would be up to them to decide if an event could be properly secured on their dime or require the speaker to fund adequate security based on previous events. A public school not allowing an event based on cost of security makes perfect sense to me (taxpayer) regardless of the topic. As long as events are handled consistently it should be fair. I am aware protestors could manipulate this to get events cancelled. The safety of the students is paramount imho.
@greenwitch, you are correct a public university doesn’t have to accept anyone as a speaker. It is just a different set of requirements/issues than a private school.
@romanigypsyeyes, your understanding of the history of free speech in the United States is completely wrong. Sorry, it just is.
Spencer’s group rented out a performance facility at UF that was available for private groups to rent. The total cost of the rental is around $10,000, and the facility is located on the outskirts of campus.
http://performingarts.ufl.edu/about/renting/
UF initially denied the rental, but when Spencer threatened to sue, the school relented as they would not have won a lawsuit. As much as groups like Spencer’s are loathsome, they do have the right to speak.
Here is an article that lays out a part of the issue faced by public universities in this context
Another manifestation of “fair is fair” is to not rent out any space to a speaker that will not pay for at least 50% of the increased security costs that are required because of the inflammatory nature of the speaker. Why should UF have to spend $500,000 on extra security and lose that money for any other need? Richard Spencer can have a bake sale and raise the money himself.
Kent State students exercising their free speech rights were killed by the National Guard.
Many individuals exercising free speech rights have been murdered or run out of town.
I’m not sure if free speech actually exists when you are killed for speaking out and no court will punish the murderers.
Lots of different interpretations of history.
^ What happened at Kent State was not about speech. It was about a completely disproportionate reaction to a violent mob. They are two very different things.
According to NPR, they can’t make him pay for security.
The protestors need to decide whether they want to help him build his brand by making this event seem more important than it is, or whether they want to work towards devaluing his brand. Good intentions being the paving stones they are.
^I think that is exactly correct. The best possible solution is if he speaks and nobody cares.
And I really hope this is true
This situation reminds me of what military recruiting had to deal with back in the 90s. Public colleges and universities did not want to give their student information to military recruiters. The same colleges and universities had no problem selling this information to credit card companies or other groups but wouldn’t sell it to the military.
The feds sued and got the universities to treat the military as any other customer who wanted to buy the list.
This university rents out space to the public. Now they want to pick and choose to whom they rent. It is discrimination and they will lose in court. They can decide not to ever rent any room to the public but that wouldn’t be good public relations for a public university.
@eyemamom , actually, Abe Lincoln was quoting Jesus Christ.
I think the problem is that the age of the internet has given all speech equal weight. It used to be that crazy never made it to the podium, but now any lunatic with a point of view and a following can claim his/her First Amendment rights and want to give a speech in some public arena. So it gets exhausting having to make arguments against a point of view that isn’t merely offensive, but absolutely ridiculous.
We’re no longer talking statesmen with opposite views (Reagan vs Carter, say), but completely uneducated lunatics with no grasp of or appreciation for any kind of fact now wanting to duke it out in public, and screaming that their First Amendment rights have been trampled when they’re not allowed to speak.