RESTRICTING HATE SPEECH COULD PROVE WORRISOME
who have sought to outlaw hate speech was to ask a question of his own.
“If you really give me or our mayor or our governor or even our president the power to prosecute people (for hate speech) … what are the chances they’re going to go after the people you think are causing problems and not target you?” he said.
Citing the civil rights movement, which was accused of inciting violence by its opponents in attempts to prohibit its activities, Gillman said hate speech restrictions could be used to stifle reformers trying to change the status quo for the better.
“It’s always in finding the voice that’s been silenced where we’ve made social progress,” he said.
Yudof alluded to the civil rights movement in addressing another approach to allowing polarizing speakers — making them pay the costs for security. Had the Rev. Martin Luther King and his followers been required to fund security fees, he said, they wouldn’t have had the means.
“But can you differentiate between that and provocateurs who want a riot to start? That’s a very different set of circumstances,” he said.
Yudof, who also served as chancellor of the University of Texas system and as president of the University of Minnesota, said it was critical for universities to establish protocols for handling controversial speeches. Among them: getting intelligence about the speaker’s supporters (“You’ve got to figure out who’s going to show up, how many are there and are they going to be armed with with bazookas”) having discussions with law enforcement, student leaders and campus staff, including a university diversity administrator, and establishing a chain of command for decision-making.
“This is a difficult transitional period in higher education, but I think we’ll get through this,” he said. “Eventually, these complex organizations will adapt.”