UF’s decision to ban Richard Spencer and his National Policy Institute from speaking on campus is a grave mistake, and one the university will come to regret. In a statement released last week, UF President Kent Fuchs defended his decision because of safety concerns. While the safety of those on campus is obviously a legitimate concern, so is the concern of free speech, which has now been shunned as a result of this decision.
It goes without saying that Spencer is a despicable and racist individual whose views represent the worst ideas in society. His beliefs, and those of the NPI, are disgusting, bigoted and repugnant. However, it must be said that Spencer and his company certainly have a right to hold these views.
As a believer in absolute free speech, it is my duty to defend one’s right to free speech in any and all circumstances, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the speaker’s views. If you support the university’s decision to deny Spencer, I invite you to entertain the following solution: Do not attend, and do not protest his speech. As it is, the cancellation has given Spencer more national media coverage than his speech alone ever would have. This is precisely what these white supremacist groups feed off of — attention. By attending or actively protesting Spencer’s speech, you are giving him the attention that he craves. The truth is, Spencer and his sympathizers represent a fringe group in America despite what the media would have you believe.
Furthermore, it is the duty of law enforcement in this country to defend the free speech rights of all individuals, regardless of what potential protests or violence may arise. If law enforcement cannot or will not protect Spencer’s right to speak, then whose speech will they protect? Speech from a speaker they deem decent? Or whose views they deem acceptable?
Consider this: In 2016 alone, campuses across the country banned several notable speakers for threats of violence. But these speakers weren’t Richard Spencer or David Duke. They were conservatives such as Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro and, yes, even U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. These conservatives were met with protests, and in some cases riots, simply because they articulate viewpoints that college liberals disagree with. Even here at UF, some students were very vocal in their opposition of allowing Shapiro to speak on campus because he was a purveyor of “hate speech.”
While it is true that security is a legitimate concern for Spencer’s proposed visit to campus, it is also true that the announcement of his visit was met with opposition. From planned protests on Facebook to emails and calls to UF, UF has given the appearance that it has caved to the heckler’s veto. This act undeniably sets a precedent and a message for future campus speakers. If hecklers and protesters object enough, then speech won’t be protected.
We have seen campus liberals across the country demonstrate an unwillingness to differentiate a conservative from a racist. In fact, they would rather make the two synonymous. At UF alone, I’ve seen students who have worn “Make America Great Again” hats labeled racists. I’ve also seen advocates of a stronger immigration policy labeled bigots in a class lecture. So how can we trust the masses to be responsible enough to make an obvious distinction between Spencer, a racist, and Coulter, for example, a conservative? The truth is, we can’t. How do we know that a conservative won’t be banned the next time that they come to UF, regardless of whether protests or violence might occur? We don’t. Any student body that attempts to equate conservatives with racists while also attempting to ban racists clearly has immense power in determining who is and who isn’t allowed to speak on campus. That should alarm everyone, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. For this reason, the university should reconsider its decision to deny Spencer.
Eduardo Neret is a UF finance senior. His column appears on Wednesdays.
