Should universities no-platform controversial speakers?

Universities should no-platform speakers because controversy compromises student safety

Question: Should universities no-platform controversial speakers?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, Universities should be able to no-platform speakers
Argument‹4 of 5›: Universities should no-platform speakers because controversy compromises student safety

The issue with inflammatory speakers is that there are often violent altercations at their events. Student safety is paramount.

The argument

Controversial speakers attract two distinct crowds - their supporters and their detractors. The more controversial a speaker is, the more intense the beliefs on either side of that spectrum is. Crucially, it is likely that these groups might see each other as an existential threat - something so evil and awful that they might resort to violence. Putting these two groups into the same venue, listening to the same inflammatory content woud drastically increase the chance of a violent altercation that would harm not only those involved but innocent onlookers too. This sort of violence has occurred before and is likely to ocurr again, and universities lack the resources to deal with it. It is therefore irresponsible for them to invite speakers that they know have a high liklihood of causing physical harm to students.

Context

The central duty of student unions and universtities should be the protection of their students from harm. Controversial events can often descend into violence, and this is happening more and more often.

Premises

[P1]Highly controversial speakers draw opposing groups whose intense beliefs make violent confrontation likely. [P2] Universities lack the resources to safely manage such confrontations, and past incidents show real harm to students and bystanders results. [P3] Universities have a responsibility not to knowingly invite speakers whose events carry a high likelihood of physical harm to students. [C] Therefore, universities should no-platform controversial speakers to protect student safety.

Counter-arguments

Why do we grant students the right to be protected from controversial ideas? Citizens are not afforded the same protections in other public spaces. Why do university campuses need to be kept as spaces without offence and controversy? We don't remove offensive books from student libraries, or erect firewalls preventing offensive and inflammatory content reaching them online. Why should we stop controversial and inflammatory ideas reaching them through planned speaker events? There are other ways of preventing violence from happening that doesn’t stifle free speech. An increased police presence and harsher punishments for those starting violence are an alternative way to keep attendees physically safe.

Rejecting the premises

Rejection of P2 means both conclusions are invalidated. Universities do have ways of improving students’ safety.