The president of California State University, Los Angeles recently cancelled an event on campus called “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” at which conservative author and political commentator Ben Shapiro was, quite ironically, scheduled to speak about freedom of speech at colleges. In particular, Shapiro intended to argue that trigger warnings, diversity, microaggressions, the Black Lives Matter movement, safe spaces and the #ConcernedStudent1950 hashtag are threats to free expression on campuses.
The university’s president, William Convino, said he cancelled the event because he felt it would be more appropriate for other speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity to be present at the event. Additionally, Convino explained to the chairman of the campus chapter of Young Americans for Freedom that an event with multiple viewpoints would “better represent our university’s dedication to the free exchange of ideas.” Although Convino’s decision to cancel Shapiro’s speech appears well-intentioned, universities should not turn away speakers such as Shapiro who hold unpopular viewpoints.
In response to Convino’s decision, Young America’s Foundation, which oversees Young Americans for Freedom, released the following statement: “Only conservatives are subject to liberal administrators’ obstructionist tactics to promote progressivism at the expense of any modicum of ideological diversity.” Given that Cal State LA has hosted other liberal speakers with controversial viewpoints such as Cornel West and Angela Davis, it is biased for the university to prevent a controversial conservative commentator from coming to campus. If the university did not cancel West and Davis’ speeches unless other individuals with opposing viewpoints spoke, then why should Shapiro receive different treatment? It is inequitable for multiple viewpoints to be a condition of Shapiro’s speech on campus when other controversial figures have delivered speeches without such a condition.
It is also disingenuous for the university’s president to present this as an issue of diversity of ideology when it is more than likely an issue of Shapiro’s viewpoints not being palatable to interested parties. A university is a place where students and thinkers should be able to freely exchange ideas. While Convino contends that allowing Shapiro to speak alone would inhibit that exchange of ideas, preventing him from speaking at all does so to a much greater degree. Additionally, each of the topics Shapiro had planned to discuss already receive significant attention from members of the academic community. Pure hate speech is one thing, but commenting on trigger warnings and microaggressions — ideas around which there is legitimate academic debate — should be welcome on a college campus.
Unless there is a safety concern with Shapiro speaking on campus — which has not been voiced by the university’s president as a reason for canceling the speech — Shapiro’s ideas deserve to be heard by his audience on campus. Conditioning an individual’s speech on the presence of multiple dissenting viewpoints is simply bad academic decision-making and is antithetical to free expression.
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | YesterdayPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | April 27, 2024The University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
