Universities are there to progress human comprehension, not censor

The argument

To allow universities to no-platform speakers, this argument holds, is to prevent them furthering human comprehension through the exploration of ideas that, at one point in time, are deemed offensive. The premise is that a university's purpose is not to host settled opinion but to test unsettled opinion, and that no-platforming removes exactly the material on which that work is done. History is offered as the test, because it lets us see which judgements survived. In 1911 Harvard denied the request of its Men's League for Women's Suffrage to host Emmeline Pankhurst as a speaker. Seen through a modern lens this is undoubtedly a travesty, and it prevented many Harvard students from further exploring — and perhaps advancing — the idea of women's suffrage. The decision was not made by people who thought they were suppressing progress; it was made by people confident that the idea did not merit a hearing. The pattern recurs. Malcolm X was barred from speaking at Queens College and the University of California, and Arthur Miller was banned from speaking at the University of South Carolina. In each case an institution applied the standards of its moment and excluded a speaker whose standing now looks very different. That is the argument's central point about knowledge. The objection to no-platforming is not that offensive speakers are usually right, but that the judgement is made by contemporaries who cannot step outside their own period to check it. There is no way of knowing in advance which ideas will prove pivotal for the further development of human comprehension and progress. Since the institution doing the excluding is the one that would have to be right about the future, and cannot be, universities should not be permitted to no-platform speakers.

Context

Some ideas and texts that have become pillars of the scientific and literary community were once censored and confiscated, including Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and James Joyce’s Ulysses.

Premises

Counter-arguments

At what point do we put the promotion of human understanding above student safety? If an idea puts students at risk of physical or emotional violence or harm, then it compromises Universities role as a safe space. First and foremost, universities should be a safe space where students can exchange ideas. If an idea compromises that safety, it should not be permitted on the platform.

Rejecting the premises

P1: Universities are safe spaces where students can further human comprehension and understanding. P3: If an idea makes a university unsafe, it should not be allowed a platform for discussion. P4: Therefore, in the preservation of universities as a safe space, they should be permitted to exclude speakers.