The extents and limits of free speech is an ongoing topic at colleges across the country, but where the conversation may come to blows on other campuses, students at UW have a great deal of common ground to stand on—even if some key differences do persist.
A recent visit to campus by a religious fundamentalist group provided an opportunity to showcase UW student responses to differing views as they took position in front of the Union to demonstrate their views, particularly pertaining to homosexuality and the role of women. In response, groups of UW students unfurled rainbow flags and brought their own signs to stand parallel from the demonstrators—not attempting to shut down the demonstration but joining it, said Dimitri Nesbitt, co-chair of the United Multicultural Council and international studies major.
“Supporting those counter-protestors was also free speech—any counter-protest against hate speech is also a form of expression,” Nesbitt said. “Our response to hate speech is also justifiable and should be protected.”
UMC is a program of ASUW that stands alongside the student government’s branches with speaking rights on the senate, there to represent “under-represented and disadvantaged” students through activism to promote diversity, awareness and support with funding from ASUW itself. The group is vocal in responding to, supporting and sometimes denouncing various happenings on campus—though in the case of Prager’s visit, its main opposition was to the use of ASUW funding for such a divisive speaker, and not to his right to speak at all.
“Free speech is something that UMC has been advocating for, for a really long time,” Nesbitt said.
Nesbitt acknowledges that even “hate speech” should be protected but sees important connections between the meaning that some words have and crossing the line into violence and unacceptable denigrations of minority groups.
“Even though language itself is protected, should meaning be treated the same way?” Nesbitt said. “If everyone has the right to say the n-word, even though not everyone should, does the meaning with that also get protected? Do we prioritize the freedom of expression over the harm it’s causing to under-represented and disadvantaged students? I would like to see students being given priority.”
Tim Nelson, president of the UW chapter of Turning Point USA and a major in criminal justice and psychology, said it’s a tall order to decide the extent to which hate speech is or is not protected and where censorship should take over.
“The question there lies in how do you quantify what is hate speech?” Nelson said. “I think the answer a lot of those who support putting limits on free speech would go to for hate speech is ‘how do people react to speech?’ But it’s very difficult to objectively say ‘this speech is hateful.’”
Ultimately, Nelson said, speaking rights that are not “fighting words” should be prioritized over whatever their impacts may be.
“Emotional reactions do not trump the communication of ideas that comes with the right of freedom of expression,” Nelson said.
Chad Baldwin, associate vice president of marketing and communications, sees UW’s students as exemplary of how a student body should handle such fundamental disparities, as evidenced by those active during Prager’s visit—especially compared to the violence and vandalism that has sparked up on some other campuses.
“I thought there was respect shown by both sides,” Baldwin said. “What could have been an ugly situation really wasn’t.”
Baldwin pointed to statements made by President Laurie Nichols as still-timely examples of UW being in a good place when it comes to free speech and discussion on campus.
“The principles of free speech and campus inclusiveness should not be mutually exclusive—they should not conflict with, but rather reinforce each other,” Nichols said in her Monday Morning Message email sent shortly after Prager’s visit. “Inclusiveness is about widening the circle of voices, including more perspectives from different backgrounds: all free to speak; free to disagree; free to discuss and debate.”
Nelson and Nesbitt both had similar things to say about different groups hitting the right notes to make progress and see each other as more than enemies.
“Creating the right approach to that is really necessary, anyone who comes up to our table we will talk to,” Nelson said. “We have had great conversations with students here that are on the other side of the aisle and come up and just want to talk with us about things. And we do – we talk with them, we exchange, we shake hands and go our separate ways.”
Nesbitt hopes that the opportunities created by conversations and even abrasive speech will create conditions that could someday lead to an ideal general understanding.
“I think our ability to be able to have conversations is very strong here at the University of Wyoming,” Nesbitt said. “I think that connection and that ability to build personal relationships with other groups, other individuals, is something that we maybe take for granted sometimes at this school.”
Even where differences and disagreements persist, Nelson said that groups which may be at odds really do want the same thing.
“You want to do the right thing, but what’s the best way to do the right thing?” Nelson said.
