OpinionDeplatforming: a losing political strategy

In response to Benjamin Gonzalez's column "Your 'free speech' is denying mine"
Benjamin CollingerFebruary 21, 201912042 min
https://1085167.v1.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/deplatforming-1280x1978.png

Illustration by Genevieve Humphreys

In the Feb. 15 edition of this paper, Benjamin Gonzalez argued for the “right to deplatform hate speech” in order to deny “racists and xenophobes from using our university as a megaphone for their harmful ideologies.” The majority of college students agree. According to a Jan. 30, 2019 report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), 60 percent believe in prioritizing an inclusive environment over protection of students’ rights to free speech.

Gonzalez rightly critiques Dinesh D’Souza, hitting similar notes as an article I co-authored in 2017 immediately after the speech. We dissected D’Souza’s ahistorical view of Nazi Germany, his dehumanizing discourse on “illegal aliens” and a variety of logical fallacies.

However, Gonzalez neglects important political dynamics and sets an arbitrary standard for limiting speech. The article conflates comfort and safety, while justifying a dubious model for activism.

Although deplatforming may be popular among college students, it represents a bad political strategy given the country’s ideological makeup. Conservatives outnumber liberals by nine percent and a rising plurality of Americans identify as independents, according to Gallup.

Taking advantage of millions of swing voters and the young people who are defecting from the Republican Party requires reasoned debate and persuasion on the merits of our arguments, not deplatforming. If liberal Democrats wish to win elections and not alienate voters, we should recognize the opportunity that a controversial speaker presents to promote our policy ideas and listen in good faith.

First, it is not clear that D’Souza’s remarks constituted hate speech — words that attack individuals or groups because of their race, ethnic background, religion, gender or sexual orientation — because his argument centered upon legal status. Nor did D’Souza advocate violence or threaten individuals, a condition that the Supreme Court determined in Virginia v. Black necessary to define something as hate speech. I do not think his comments about immigrants are acceptable, but legal minutia cannot resolve a fundamentally political dispute.

Second, Gonzalez discounts the political valence of D’Souza and other deplatformed speakers. Regardless of whether we agree with disinvited speakers like Ben Shapiro, Steve Bannon or even John Brennan, they often represent a sizable share of public opinion that should be understood and debated. Inviting a backlash by deplatforming will not persuade conservatives to defect.

We should follow The Economist’s lead. Its editor, Zanny Minton Beddoes, defended her decision to host a discussion with Bannon despite the fact that he “stands for a worldview that is antithetical to the liberal values The Economist has always espoused. We asked him to take part because his populist nationalism is of grave consequence in today’s politics.”

Third, the idea that D’Souza’s voice denies Gonzalez’s speech or that of undocumented immigrants is misguided. If it were true, he would not have a regular column in this paper, and the growing coalition of activists and political support for DACA students would not exist. The D’Souza and Yiannopoulos visits were, despite their clownish absurdity, still net-positive because of the discussions they catalyzed.

Unfettered corporate election spending, large technology and media conglomerates as well as the almost certain demise of net neutrality mitigate the free exchange of ideas. However, our campus can serve as a “marketplace of ideas” in ways that other parts of society cannot. We have a small student population, a largely supportive faculty and are capable of organizing on behalf of others if we choose.

Finally, Gonzalez implies that the SGA decision to fund Jonah Goldberg’s visit to Trinity neglects the “common interest of our peers” by promoting “crackpot conservative theories.” This is another instance of Gonzalez discounting someone’s prominence and ideas. Goldberg is senior editor for National Review and works in the American Enterprise Institute, both key establishments in conservative thought. Moreover, his latest book Suicide of the West deals with many timeless issues — such as tribalism and the role of government — that are worthy of public debate.

If we refer to such speakers and their ideas with contempt, we commit an act of bad faith and lose the chance to have respectful debates. Deplatforming will seem unreasonable to our country and is a bad political strategy if we intend to expand the Democratic coalition. Instead, let’s hone our political messages and policy ideas through debate.

Benjamin Collinger

One comment

  • gmmay70

    June 13, 2019 at 3:53 pm

    You’ll certainly not cause any defections from the Right through intellectual dishonesty and shabby rhetoric. Shortly after this article begins, you link a column you wrote about D’Souza. The first paragraph you attempt to deconstruct results from missing D’Souza’s point almost in its entirety. Rather than address the facts you omit and the claims you ignore, I’ll simply point out that you launch into refuting claims that D’Souza did not make. And here you complain of logical fallacies.

    Soon after, you raise the tired old canard of the “Party Switch” between the Democrats and Republicans – a proposition that – while easily debunked by voting data, party platforms, legislative history at the federal level, and comparative civil rights records of key party figures – is easily rubbished by the idea that the mythical party switch would place FDR in the GOP. It’s a vapid, ignorant, and tendentious effort to deflect clear historical blame.

    Thankfully, early displays of poor credibility at least save the reader time. Here, you demonstrate the same pattern of error. It is, in point of inarguable fact, that D’Souza’s remrks did not constitute “hate speech” because no such legal category exists. You erroneously claim that Viginia v. Black defines that category. It does not. This is something that doesn’t require legal specialization to know and understand.

    Though the thesis of this piece is both sound and important, you completely undermine yourself by committing the very errors for which you criticize others. Clownish absurdity indeed.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts