OPINION: USC must support free speech, not defend Shapiro’s hate speech


Adriana Sanchez | Daily Trojan

In early 2017, over 1,000 protestors swarmed Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union at UC Berkeley in response to a talk by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Riot police barricaded the building while dozens of masked, anti-fascist demonstrators fired Roman candles and broke windows. Only about 15 minutes after the protests erupted, police announced that Yiannopoulos would no longer deliver his scheduled speech.

Incidents like this sparked a nationwide debate over the limits of free speech, with many saying that leftists encouraged censorship and discouraged free debate. Even opponents of Yiannopoulos said that Berkeley students went too far and behaved too radically. They said that he was entitled to express his opinions, regardless of their incendiary nature.

Several months later, following a Berkeley City Council decision to authorize the use of pepper spray on violent protesters, students showed up en masse to protest a talk featuring Yiannopoulos’ former Breitbart News co-editor, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro. Shapiro is now scheduled to spew his rhetoric at Bovard Auditorium on Oct. 4, in an event organized by USC’s Young Americans for Freedom chapter.

But allowing Shapiro to speak on campus does not show USC’s commitment to free speech. Rather, permitting him to speak reveals the University’s willingness to legitimize hateful rhetoric by giving it a platform at a highly regarded institution. Regardless of his right to free speech, USC has no reason to endorse him or normalize his opinions within academia.

To be fair, Shapiro’s rhetoric is more mild than Yiannopoulos’ — which may not be saying much. Shapiro has, however, called transgender people “mentally ill” and takes every opportunity to belittle racial minorities, members of the LGBTQ+ community and marginalized groups in general. He’s the standard camouflaged bigot and embodies the phrase, “I’m not racist, but…”

As such, USC’s decision to grant Shapiro a platform is a mistake. It amounts to a tacit endorsement, one that subjugates vulnerable people who have struggled for decades for opportunities in academia. There are thousands of people at USC who work hard to advocate for inclusivity and equality; it is insulting to see their work diminished by the University’s implicit validation of a man who tweets things like “Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.”

The idea that controversial right wingers like Shapiro and Yiannopoulos should be given platforms at universities has been mischaracterized as an issue of free speech. Attacks on free speech do not come from popular, democratic resistance; they arise from institutional and governmental censorship.

To understand how the power dynamics surrounding freedom of speech operate, we must consider the past. The free speech movement at UC Berkeley in the 1960s, for example, spawned from students being prohibited by their university from distributing flyers about political issues, particularly those related to Civil Rights or anti-war movements. The problem here was the official, authoritative censorship of ordinary people.

On the other hand, modern day provocateurs like Shapiro and Yiannopoulos write for major publications and their voices reach millions of people. Pretending that disapproving students presents a genuine challenge to their freedom of speech is absolutely ridiculous. Such a claim is rendered trivial next to more profound freedom of speech issues.

And just because students don’t want Shapiro on their campus doesn’t make them close-minded or unable to handle differences in opinion. It does mean people — especially those who experience the brunt of bigotry — can appreciate the delicacy of language and see the hateful ideas behind Shapiro’s rhetoric.

USC should be committed to free speech, but it should not protect hate speech. The spectrum of discourse is not fixed in the fabric of society. It changes constantly based on what we deem acceptable. When cultures allow hateful language into public discourse, hateful action suddenly appears less taboo.

According to the American Psychological Association, “political discourse may devalue members of unfamiliar groups,” having harmful repercussions in how people interact with each other. Shapiro aims to do just that: Devalue people who are already marginalized and play it off as contrarian logic.

In addition, Shapiro is simply not a serious intellectual. He’s a pandering clown who uses fancy vocabulary to make his listeners think he possesses some grand understanding of a theatrical political landscape in which each party must capitalize on the news cycle to earn cheap favorability points with their bases.

He reasons that liberals and leftists are thoughtless, overly emotional sycophants of the liberal media, and paints thinly-veiled hate masquerading as logic for a base of angry nerds. In reality, he has nothing substantial to offer. Allowing him to speak promises only to embolden bigotry and make marginalized people fear for their safety.