Universities are meant to be the burgeoning hubs of idea exchange, yet denying controversial speakers a platform on campuses has become increasingly acceptable. Are there good reasons to no-platform inflammatory speakers?
No-platforming is legitimate and beneficial
Controversy compromises student safety
The issue with inflammatory speakers is that there are often violent altercations at their events. Student safety is paramount.
Lawmakers can no-platform
If lawmakers are allowed to no-platform speakers, why can't universities?
A platform grants legitimacy
The best way to combat extreme ideas is to not afford them the space to spread.
Universities have rights too
No-platforming is not really censorship. It is just individual universities choosing speakers who align with their values.
No-platforming is harmful and shouldn’t be done
Students should learn to cope with controversy
The real world cannot be deplatformed or muted when you are uncomfortable.
Extremism is countered by debate
Forcing views we deem unpalatable underground doesn't help us tackle them - only open debate will.
Universities are there to progress human comprehension
"Everything we know about the world...the age of our civilization, species, planet, and universe... came as insults to the sacred dogma of the day."
No-platforming is a violation of free speech
Many countries in the West have laws protecting free speech. No-platforming violates those protections.
This page was last edited on Friday, 17 Jan 2020 at 16:19 UTC