- Question
Should universities no-platform controversial speakers?
Universities are meant to be the burgeoning hubs of idea exchange, yet denying controversial speakers a platform on campuses has become increasingly acceptable. Are there good reasons to no-platform inflammatory speakers?
Yes, Universities should be able to no-platform speakers
This position holds that universities should be able to no-platform controversial speakers. It argues that universities have rights of their own, that offering a platform confers legitimacy, that some speech compromises student safety, and that true neutrality is not actually an available option.
- Universities should be able to no-platform speakers because a platform grants legitimacy
- Universities should be able to no-platform speakers because lawmakers can no-platform
- Universities have rights too and so should be able to no-platform speakers
- Universities should no-platform speakers because controversy compromises student safety
- Neutrality is not an option
No, Universities should not be able to no-platform speakers
This position holds that universities should not no-platform controversial speakers. It argues that no-platforming violates free speech, that universities exist to advance understanding not censor it, that extremism is best countered by debate, and that students should learn to handle controversy.
- Universities are there to progress human comprehension, not censor
- Universities should not no-platform speakers because extremism is countered by debate
- No-platforming controversial speakers is a violation of free speech
- Universities should not no-platform speakers because students should learn to cope with controversy