- Position1 of 2›
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.
Supporting arguments · 5
- Universities should be able to no-platform speakers because a platform grants legitimacyThe best way to combat extreme ideas is to not afford them the space to spread.
- Universities should be able to no-platform speakers because lawmakers can no-platformIf lawmakers are allowed to no-platform speakers, why can't universities?
- Universities have rights too and so should be able to no-platform speakersNo-platforming is not really censorship. It is just individual universities choosing speakers who align with their values.
- Universities should no-platform speakers because controversy compromises student safetyThe issue with inflammatory speakers is that there are often violent altercations at their events. Student safety is paramount.
- Neutrality is not an optionUniversities need to take a definitive stance that condemn hate and all forms of discrimination and the rhetoric that is used to support it