Students at William & Mary College from Black Lives Matter stormed the stage at a campus speaking event preventing the appearance of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Claire Gastanaga. Gastanaga failed to preempt the protesters by acknowledging their right to protest and was drowned out by chants and slogans such as “liberalism is white supremacy.” The college took no steps to identify or punish the hecklers. (Reason, October 4, 2017, by Robby Soave)
Director of Virginia’s ACLU, Gastanaga said William & Mary were obligated to prevent a “heckler’s veto” of a speaker. “What happened at William & Mary on Sept. 27 is a part of a larger national trend that is challenging campus leaders across the country to find the right formula for assuring that critical community conversations can take place in a culture of inquiry consistent with a true learning environment. Actions that bully, intimidate or disrupt must not be without consequences in any such formula,” she said. (Inside Higher Ed, October 6, 207, by Jeremy Bauer-Wolf)
While noting that the most dangerous threats to free speech originate on the right, Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times, October 6, 2017, cautions student activists. “Yet while I’m under no illusion that they [the activists] are interested in the opinions of Gen X liberals like myself, someone should tell them that if the principle of free speech is curtailed, those with the least power are most likely to feel the chill.”
The News Virginian editorial of October 6, 2017 points out the ironies in a statement by a Black Lives Matter protester who said that rights given to the powerful wealthy whites do not extend to marginalized groups, “The ACLU has a long history defending the rights of minorities. Unlike the protesters at W&M, it recognizes that doing so requires defending the rights of others, too. By definition, the concept of equal rights — note that word, ‘equal’ — is reflexive and symmetric. Minority-rights activists who insist otherwise foolishly contradict the animating principle of their very own movement.”
Writing in The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 9, 2017, Frederick M. Lawrence and William K. Marimow offer three core principles for protecting campus free speech. 1. Barring violent threats, it is the duty of college leaders to provide a secure climate for debate. 2. The cost of free speech should be borne by all members of the campus community. 3. “When confronted with hateful speech, campus leaders can defend the speaker’s right of expression while stating firmly and unequivocally that the speaker’s views are inconsistent with the values of the institution.”