On Jan. 20, a member of the Industrial Workers of the World was shot in the stomach on the University of Washington campus while attempting to keep the peace outside of Kane Hall, where hyper-conservative firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak.
Police on bicycles encircled the body bleeding on Red Square, pushing back protesters, supporters and even civilian medics attempting to help the man. They put him on a golf cart and took him to a nearby ambulance. The man, who chooses to be called Hex, would spend the next month in the hospital for his wounds. The shooter, eventually identified as Elizabeth Hokoana, was charged with a crime in April.
Four months after the shooting, a small crowd of students, teachers and observers gathered in the same building to process the events of that night through the lenses of seven panelists representing viewpoints from the Republican club that brought Yiannopoulos to campus, people highlighting the impact on marginalized groups and a friend of the man who was shot. They asked fundamental questions.
Could Yiannopoulos’ presence and words be blamed for the violence on campus that night?
Was the hate speech, implicit and explicit threats and internet attacks perpetrated by Yiannopoulos and his followers in the past protected speech? Should it be?
Should Yiannopoulos have been allowed to speak at all?
Courts draw the line between protected speech and unprotected hate speech on a case-by-case basis: While there is clearly a distinction, it must be determined by the specific facts of the incident if speech warrants protections under the First Amendment.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which published a question-and-answer article in the wake of the Yiannopoulos speaking tour, the courts have set a high bar for what takes speech outside First Amendment protections. “[T]argeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students” would not warrant such a shield, but “offensive or bigoted speech does not rise to that level,” according to the ACLU article.
But some panelists argued students were targeted or harassed by people influenced by the content of Yiannopoulos’ presentations. Many marginalized groups on campus, in particular, felt that a hostile environment had been created for them by allowing speech that emboldened xenophobes. The vectors for abuse have also changed with the advent of the internet and social media, which allows people to have their personal details discovered and published by anyone with know-how.
“Speech is consequential,” said Shon Meckfessel, a teacher at Highline Community College and protest movement researcher.
He described students who had dropped out of their courses because of discomfort and fear when confronted by a person touting bigoted views, and White supremacists on campus wielding blades with no consequences. An all-person-of-color production of “As You Like It” saw the inside of their theater’s door papered with fliers from Atomwaffen, a Neo-Nazi hate group.
“Colleges limit speech all the time,” Meckfessel argued, saying that the institutions have the power to deny speakers a platform and use that power inconsistently and often to the benefit of dangerous speech.
Venkat Balasubramani, an attorney who does work with the ACLU, pushed back on the notion that the college both could and should have prevented Yiannopoulos from speaking.
“More speech is better, in my point of view,” Balasubramani said.
Putting power in the hands of the university leadership to accept and deny speakers at will or as a result of the “heckler’s veto” would be dangerous to the concept of free speech, by this way of thinking. The ACLU points to cases in which giving universities such latitude resulted in the policies being used against minority groups, not for their protection, such as allowing White students to charge Black students with using offensive speech.
“[Restrictions] on speech don’t really serve the interests of marginalized groups,” the ACLU article reads. “The First Amendment does.”
This view, purportedly shared by Jack Pickett, the representative of the College Republicans on the panel, did not fly with other panelists. They disagreed with the assertion that more speech from a marginalized person would solve the problem rather than invite violence or harm. They also pushed back on the idea that the university or other institutions should not intervene to prevent predictable harm.
Universities already extend that shield in certain cases, Meckfessel said.
“I don’t think the university would host a Holocaust denial conference,” he said, paused and continued, “I hope not.”
The discussion ultimately could not and did not answer the questions posed. It did not help the man who was shot or provide a meaningful promise of campus safety to people who walk scared because of their identity.
It was, as panelist and UW academic Alan-Michael Weatherford predicted in his opening remarks. He said the panel was a reactionary attempt to rationalize a worldview that victimizes marginalized communities, and a “slap in the face” to academics and others whose research and past work could have prevented the violence on Jan. 20, if only someone had listened.
“We set up the conditions for someone to be shot,” Weatherford said.
Read the full May 31 issue.
Ashley Archibald is a Staff Reporter covering local government, policy and equity. Have a story idea? She can be can reached at ashleya (at) realchangenews (dot) org. Twitter @AshleyA_RC
RELATED ARTICLES:
Blood on Red Square: Protester shot at Milo Yiannopoulos protest on UW campus
UW Food Pantry pursues food recovery program