Free Speech on Campus

Professor Lee Epstein and Chancellor Andrew D. Martin

Political Science 334

Spring 2022

WHITE SUPREMACIST SPEAKERS (April 27)

Case Study #1 (University of Florida)
In September 2017, white supremacist Richard Spencer was scheduled to speak at the University of Florida. In August 2017, the University's President, Kent Fuchs, cancelled the event citing "serious concerns" about safety in the wake of the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. According to Fuchs:

I find the racist rhetoric of Richard Spencer and white nationalism repugnant and counter to everything the university and this nation stands for. That said, the University of Florida remains unwaveringly dedicated to free speech and the spirit of public discourse. However, the First Amendment does not require a public institution to risk imminent violence to students and others. The likelihood of violence and potential injury—not the words or ideas—has caused us to take this action.

In response, a First Amendment lawyer said, "I think that is the sort of decision that the white supremacists will use to their advantage to try to criticize the university from stopping them from speaking." He added:

There obviously was a very serious incident in Charlottesville, but then to conclude from that that the particular awful controversial view is not going to be allowed to speak in the future is a very difficult position to sustain... It will be unfortunate if this does exacerbate the tensions that already exist.

Case Study #2 (Michigan State University)
In the Fall of 2018, white nationalist Richard Spencer requested permission to speak at Michigan State University (MSU). Initially the University rejected this request due to fear of violence but later changed its position. MSU's president released a statement summarizing the University's position:

Last fall, a white nationalist group requested to hold an event at MSU shortly after tragic violence at a rally in Charlottesville, Va. MSU declined to allow the event at that time, not because of their hateful views, but because public safety is our first obligation.

Michigan State is wholly dedicated to freedom of speech, not just as a public institution, but as an institution of higher education. Here, ideas—not people—are meant to clash and to be evaluated based on their merits.

This week, MSU agreed to allow the group to hold an event, during spring break, at the MSU Pavilion for Agriculture and Livestock Education on March 5, from 4:30-6:30 p.m. This agreement was based on the university’s requirement that the event occur on a date and at a venue that minimizes the risk of violence or disruption to campus. The security of our campus community remains our top priority and all appropriate security measures will be taken in connection with the event.

Michigan State rejects this group's divisive and racist messages and remains committed to maintaining a diverse campus and supporting an inclusive, just and democratic society.

Readings

1. For background on Spencer please do at least one of the following:

   • Watch Documenting Hate: Charlottesville

   • Listen to the Audio podcast of the documentary Documenting Hate: Charlottesville

   • Read this article from ABC

2. Opinion pieces from Michigan State’s student newspaper.

   • Letter: Why I will resist Richard Spencer

   • Letter: If National Policy Institute comes to MSU, hold the speakers responsible for ramifications

   • Letter to the Editor: Spartans should attend Spencer's 'marketplace of ideas'

3. Claire Moore, "Protesters condemn Richard Spencer outside MSU Pavilion," State News, March 5, 2018

4. Excerpt of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) (re-read)

Section/Class Activities

1. Does the risk of "imminent violence to students and others" justify cancelling or disallowing a speech, at a university, by a white supremacist—or, for that matter, any speaker who could incite violence? How can universities assess whether this risk exists? What reasons could justify decisions to exclude speakers?

2. Does it make sense for a university to reject a speaker’s message while providing a platform for him or her to speak?

3. Is moving a controversial speaker off-campus a reasonable solution? What are other possibilities?

4. Should universities establish written, formal policies on speakers? If so, what should those policies say? Or should universities make decisions on a case-by-case basis? What criteria should they use?