OPINION: Shapiro is unpleasant, but students should still listen to him


Conservative commentator and political pundit Ben Shapiro’s upcoming speaking event at Bovard Auditorium has received mixed reviews. The Black Student Assembly, Latinx Student Assembly and Asian Pacific American Student Assembly released an unsigned statement last weekend, voicing their anger at USC and USG for funding the event. The unease of these student groups is centered on the degree of law enforcement and the safety of students, as the increased presence of police enforcement “has the potential to put black and brown communities at serious risk for being racially profiled or targeted,” according to the statement.

The statement also expressed fear that Shapiro’s presence will be “a catalyst for the dangerously radical conservatives and white supremacists already present on campus.”

Unintentional dissemination of discriminatory speech on campus is a cause for anxiety, and campus-wide controversy is inevitable. However, universities should be environments where students can explore different political opinions and ideologies. Seeking to greet this controversy with an open mind is a deliberate choice that students can make.

Shapiro is — for lack of a better word — provocative. In his visit to UCLA in 2017, he discussed his views on gay sex and marriage as sins. He also believes that transgender people are mentally ill, as he has stated to news outlets multiple times. During his visit to the University of Connecticut in January, he replied to a question about why a transgender woman could not use the pronoun “she”:  “Because it is a lie.” He also is opposed to the Black Lives Matters movement, arguing that socio-economic disparities among black Americans is not the result of racism, but rather a “mentality of victimhood.”

Shapiro is aware that his perspectives are subject to disagreement. While his position appears to delegitimize and silence the voices of people with opposing views, in reality Shapiro invites those with perspectives different from his to question him first at his speeches.

“I love taking questions,” he said, at his talk in Berkeley last year. “It’s my favorite thing, and I have a rule which is if you disagree with me, raise your hand and go to the front of the line, because discussion makes the country better.”

His positions against victimhood reside in the belief that accepting it “makes the country a worse place,” along with an unwillingness to handle disagreement.

Liberal and conservative parties are both guilty of close-minded thinking, in which it is rare to engage with those sharing dissonant views. This refusal to listen has removed both parties from upholding their integrity as establishments promoting the First Amendment. However, when stripped away from political interests, both parties share a binding and elemental concern over what is best for the United States. Shapiro shares in the belief that willingness to pursue free speech in discourse is what “makes the country better.”

There are defensible and credible reasons for protesting Shapiro’s arrival, especially for students whose identities and experiences are delegitimized by his speech. But an attempt to shut down Shapiro’s discussion and a refusal to listen to what he has to share plays into the stereotype of liberals seeking to remove contradictory views from university settings. It can also be viewed as the perpetuation of political polarization and an unwillingness to transcend differences.

USC students should be encouraged to lean into unpleasant conversations. While engaging with hateful rhetoric might create fears of spreading such ideas, having a will to hear out these opinions can also decrease polarity among people of different political beliefs. This exposure even provides those willing to listen with an awareness of a counterargument, and an opportunity to pursue the American value of democracy. But it is necessary to seek exposure, in order to decrease anger and increase empathy.

With Shapiro’s visit, USC students have the opportunity to set an example for how elected politicians in office should practice: with an open mind, unapologetically willing to seek solutions presented by both sides of the political spectrum for how to best govern the United States.