MTU, the latest victim of pundit-provocateurs

There are a lot of free speech issues on public university campuses. The intersection of public funding, academic purpose, and young people eager to change the world create a haphazard landscape of youthful energy, powerful ideas, shifting policies, and rigid laws.

Speakers from off campus can be a particularly difficult topic. Sometimes a speaker is shouted down by angry students. Sometimes a speaker is heckled by people who come onto the campus from the outside community. Other times, the speaker’s event is canceled in advance due to security concerns brought on by rioters and vandals.

These issues are intentionally exploited by political pundits looking to raise their visibility in the media and grow their following.

The recent controversy over Brandon Tatum’s planned visit to Michigan Tech came as a surprise to some, but this game has been played for a decade at public universities across the nation.

A divisive speaker, often a political pundit, books an event on a public campus, usually with the help of a student organization rather than the staff or faculty. There is backlash from members of the student body, faculty, or the community surrounding the university who feel the speaker has views that are prejudiced or incite people to put others at physical risk. The speaker uses the publicity of the backlash to grow their audience and build their platform, which they typically use, in turn, to accumulate money from donations or sales of products and advertising.

Engaging directly with a provocateur isn’t productive. Their goal is not good-faith discussion or fact-based debate. They will not admit they were mistaken or agree to disagree. Their only goal is the argument, to be contrarian, in order to build their platform. The bigger the conflict, the bigger the win for the provocateur. It’s a game for them, with the goal being influence and money.

Because of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and the potential for costly lawsuits, universities have allowed these controversial speeches to happen. Sometimes, there are violent or costly results, in which case the university is left responsible for any damages.

What has happened

Milo Yiannopoulos is probably the most well-known example. Among other things, Yiannopoulos has a record of speech against LGBT+ communities, and was an editor for the alt-right publication “Breitbart News.” As part of a set of speeches at different universities around the country, he was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley in February 2017. Around 1,500 protestors showed up to protest and, according to university officials, around 150 of those came with violent intentions. Masked individuals threw rocks at the police, broke windows, and started fires. Two college Republicans were attacked in the midst of an interview (the assailants were apprehended).

Ultimately, in the midst of the violence, Yiannopoulos’ speech was canceled just hours before it was scheduled to happen, and he was escorted off the campus for his safety. In turn, then-President Donald Trump threatened to revoke federal university funding on Twitter, and Yiannopoulos in turn shared that tweet to his libertarian and conservative followers on Facebook as a triumph against the liberal establishment at UC Berkeley.

Tomi Lahren, host of Fox Nation, was invited to speak in September 2022 by the student chapter of Turning Point USA at the University of New Mexico. Counter-protestors caused a disruption, proceeding into the building, banging on walls, and reportedly putting a hole in one of them. Lahren played up the violence on her social media.

Event organizers, for their part, were accused of turning students away from the event based on their appearance, and possibly skin color. The university said they are investigating these claims.

These were successes for Yiannopoulos and Lahren. While their speeches would have probably been lightly attended at best, they received massive, free publicity through social and traditional media because of the controversy generated on campus. The controversy is the goal, not the result.

Why people are upset

There are two major issues at play here that raise concerns.

The First Amendment

According to the Supreme Court(Matal v. Tam, 2017), there isn’t a line between free speech and hate speech under the First Amendment. These types of speech can be limited on private platforms life Facebook or Twitter, but not by government entities. Public universities, as publicly-funded entities, can’t limit free speech, or by extension, hate speech, without running the risk of lawsuits, which are expensive whether won or lost.

So, even when a speaker’s ideology runs counter to a university’s own diversity and inclusion policies, they still have a legal obligation to allow them to speak under the current precedent.

Further, harassment can be a major concern. A crime under Michigan law, it can be hard for officials to determine what is protected free speech and what is harassment, particularly in heated moments on campus.

Campus Safety

What responsibility does a speaker and leader have for the actions of attendees of their speech? People sometimes travel from out of the area to attend these speaking events, and can pose a threat to student and faculty safety. Students who are members of minority and protected classes can feel under threat by speech that denies their right to publicly exist.

Universities have a responsibility to the safety of everyone on campus, regardless of their speech, sexual orientation, gender identity, or political persuasion. If an event promises to generate protests, violent or otherwise, they need to react in a way that prioritizes the safety of everyone. These reactions have been met with criticisms from being too oppressive to not being strong enough to stop violence or make students feel safe.

Defusing the situation

While these situations can be difficult to navigate, there are some things universities can do to minimize the risks of violence and property damage, as well as protect their students from feeling marginalized.

Establish standards for all speakers that come to campus, and apply them universally. How does the proposed speaker contribute to the discourse on campus? Is what they have to say academically relevant to campus programs? Do they have significant experience in their field? Policymakers, scholars, and field experts can easily meet well-crafted guidelines, while a political pundit-provocateur with no true academic motive might fall short.

Provide support for students through organizations like law enforcement, diversity and inclusion centers, and school counseling. Provide opportunities for organized counter-expression like alternative speaking events, collective art projects, and open mic nights. Communicate these resources openly and repeatedly.

Be prepared for protests with a flexible plan and advance communication. Many protestors will be peaceful, but some may not. Officials should take the initiative to establish expectations to make sure that attendees, protestors, and counter-protestors can all attend in safety, and without anyone’s rights being infringed.

Affirm the values of the university. Students, staff, and faculty alike are going to wonder if the university administration shares or disapproves of a controversial message hosted on their campus. Affirm the values of the university and highlight where they may differ from the speaker’s views. Disagreeing with a speaker is not the same as silencing one.

Our freedoms come with responsibilities. The cost of our freedom of speech is sometimes having to allow speech we disagree with to continue. We must make the remedy for speech we disagree with something other than shutting it down or drowning it out. We have to raise the level of debate above shouted arguments to a conversation that can have a peaceful outcome.

Provocateurs make this difficult, intentionally. We can win the game they play, but only if we recognize it for what it is and play our own hand thoughtfully.