Many have condemned the upcoming lecture by controversial speaker Robert Spencer. While debate and discourse regarding controversial speakers is a hallmark of democratic freedom, a recent op-ed signed by over 20 student organizations takes a dangerous Orwellian stance on the matter. The op-ed makes two “demands,” each presenting a clear and substantial danger to a free society: first, that Stanford College Republicans (SCR) cancel the event “based on our opposition to Spencer,” and second, that students and faculty “boycott the event in solidarity.” I write not to defend the opinions of Robert Spencer but rather to defend his right to express his opinions and the right of our community to hear those opinions.
The demand to cancel
The totalitarian train of thought underlying the call for cancellation undermines the ideals represented by the First Amendment, as well as Stanford’s motto, “The Wind of Freedom Blows.” Cancellation may also violate California’s Leonard Law, which precludes private universities from infringing upon students’ First Amendment rights. While Spencer is not a student, the College Republicans certainly are. Accordingly, unless Spencer’s speech falls outside First Amendment protections, muzzling the College Republicans by silencing their selected speaker crosses the line that the Leonard Law draws in the sand.
Beyond legal reasoning, cancellation would send a clear message that the most effective way to fight opposing ideas is through forceful silencing. By cowering from contrasting opinions, Spencer wins and freedom loses. We must face opposing views head-on and systematically point out their flaws, rather than closing our eyes and pretending they don’t exist. The open letter claims that engaging with Spencer is “a contradiction” because of his stances. The real “contradiction” is claiming to respect the right to freedom of speech while simultaneously demanding the cancellation of a speaker due to his political stance. Further, when constitutionally protected viewpoints are labeled as unacceptable thoughtcrime requiring intervention by the majority will, this assertion is a mere farce. Although it is easy to live inside the Stanford bubble, where the mainstream viewpoint continually bolsters itself and dominates opposition, it does nothing to work towards a solution.
In a school where students “demand” that a lecture be shut down due to opposition, does the “wind of freedom” really blow? It is imperative that we allow Spencer to speak. Only then can the student body enter a rational discourse where Spencer’s views can be contested and students can arrive at their own conclusions.
The demand to boycott
Next, the letter demands a boycott of the event, suggesting that the decision to attend is “not a neutral one.” It is reckless to suggest that students are “not neutral” by exercising their right to listen to legally protected speech. The effort to prohibit students from hearing different ideas disrespects the law, Stanford students, the University and democracy itself. The decision to attend is a personal one. For some, it absolutely is a neutral decision; others may attend in protest or in support.
The letter then resorts to ad hominem attacks on Spencer. Because his “unsubstantiated hate-speech” has never been peer-reviewed, the author reasons that Spencer does not meet the standards for a university speaker. Moreover, the author claims that his “presence on campus” violates Stanford’s Fundamental Standard, which, ironically, requires free speech and intellectual honesty of all. Is it intellectually honest to suggest that Spencer, who, according to a simple Google search, holds an M.A. in religious studies from UNC, published several books on religion and has lectured to U.S. government agencies, has an insufficient knowledge base from which to speak? Is it intellectually honest to claim that hosting Spencer would disrespect “the intelligence of” the audience? On the contrary, demanding a boycott disrespects the intelligence of the Stanford community. I do not profess that we listen to Spencer because we endorse his views. Nor do I “demand” that anyone attend his lecture. We simply ought to have the respect and confidence in our peers to form their own opinions after freely thinking about these issues and considering diverse views, if they so choose.
Although I disagree with many of Spencer’s positions, I refuse to preemptively label him as someone incapable of reasonable discourse. I will not sheepishly assume that, because he has not written a peer-reviewed research paper in an elite journal, he is somehow below the threshold of free speech. Instead, I will listen to him critically and arrive at my own conclusions. I will judge Spencer on the merit, or lack thereof, of his arguments before making my own assertions. I will question him on our areas of disagreement. I believe other interested students should have the opportunity to do the same.
In conclusion
The recent discussions surrounding Spencer and the limitations of free speech are both timely and important. I urge students to analyze this complex issue through a legal, intellectual and moral lens, rather than blindly accept the letter’s subjective value judgement of Spencer’s views. We deserve to live in an environment where the wind of freedom blows. This wind must be both plural and multi-directional. Both liberal and conservative. Wind we agree with, and wind we disagree with. For if we eliminate the wind we disagree with, all we are left with is stagnant air.
Respectfully,
Jared Geller
Contact Jared Geller at jmgeller ‘at’ stanford.edu.