Abstract:
In the wake of a rising tide of hate crime and active hate groups, the institution of the university
is being simultaneously criticized and hailed for hosting white nationalist guest speakers and
rhetoric. Many argue to allow the presence of hateful speech on campus on the basis that it is an
unavoidable part of having a democratic society, and attempting to limit it would also limit the
free exchange of ideas that is not only integral to learning at the university level, but integral to
the mission of higher education. I contend that the university’s mission of education and
certifying expertise necessitates censoring outdated or erroneous speech, which encompasses
hateful speech, in order to maintain credibility. In effect, this does not stifle students’ rights, but
strengthens them by allowing marginalized students equal protection. I ultimately argue that an
absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment typical in American public discourse functions
to reproduce white racial dominance and thusly guards the university as an “inner dike” or white
center of property. To amend this, we must balance our values of freedom with those of dignity
and equal opportunity.
The questions guiding this research are as follows:
1. What is the predominant attitude toward free speech on campus, and how does that relate
to tolerating white nationalist guest speakers?
2. What is the role of higher education, in terms of its central mission and purpose, in
regulating or not regulating speech?
3. How does hate speech affect students?
