     Colleges have become a near echo chamber for left leaning professors in fields associated with sociology and the humanities. In the United States, 58-66% of professors in social sciences identify as liberal, compared to the 8-1% that identify as conservative (Duarte et al. 3). In other departments, the discrepancy does not improve by a large margin. In psychology and the humanities, conservatives make up less than 10% of the polled sample, with a minimum ratio of 5 to 1 (Duarte et al. 3). 

     This space of a near academic hegemony in these popular, and somewhat subjective, subjects invariably leads to political views being taught to students. The ideals of liberals become ingrained in the students as absolute truths. This lends to staunch defense of closely held beliefs, which is not inherently condemnable.  The defense of values can manifest itself in many ways, including the suppression of the free speech of peers and invited speakers. These are incorrect ways of going about addressing dissention and opposition to one’s principles. To defend beliefs, a thorough discussion must be had between opposite sides to not only reach a greater sense of understanding, but to inform others of the positions held regarding the issue at hand. The only way to fully address a contentious point is to have open debate, which is only possible if everyone has the full freedom to speak their mind and have opinions that not everyone agrees with. This silencing of opposing views by radicals of the left has been seen very recently with a very provocative speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos. At a speaking event at the University of California, Berkeley, there were protests that turned to riots.  The rioters caused $100,000 in damages to the campus all because there was a provocative speaker that was invited and was presenting controversial material (Park and Lah). 

     The concerns of members of the radical left, however, are out of legitimate concern and care for the most part. Much of the feelings around free speech on the left revolve around the idea of hate speech. The belief is that hate speech directly or indirectly hurts members of a minority or marginalized group, and therefore it is not held to the same free speech as non-hate speech ideas. It is thought that hate speech should not be part of a discussion due to the fact that it harms and further marginalizes members of specific groups. The acts of hurting these groups, depending on what is said, is considered to be racist, homophobic, sexist, or another label used to shed light on someone’s prejudices. By using these labels, the speaker can be shown to be bigoted and a person whose opinion should not be sought on the topic spoken about.

     Another point is that of trigger warnings and safe spaces, two topics that generally are discussed in tandem. Trigger warnings are important because they allow for people who have gone through traumatic experiences to not be reminded of their experience by discussions of these events or ideas. For example, someone who went through sexual assault may not be comfortable reading a passage in literature containing sexual violence. In the same mindset, safe spaces are places where people who are marginalized or have been through bad experiences can come to feel safe and to avoid having hurtful experiences. These are reasons given by the left as to why free speech should be limited in content of the speech and location of the speaker. 

     There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about how hate speech is handled, especially when it comes to comments about the most vulnerable members of society. The most vulnerable should be helped in any way possible by those who are able. Speech that is legitimately hate speech, as in inciting violence, perpetuating hatred, or “treating someone as a moral subordinate” should be curtailed by society and not widely accepted (Altman 313). In fact, inciting violence is a punishable crime that is not included in free speech. People who have or may experience truly traumatizing events need to be helped and supported, especially when they are relatively young, like on college campuses. However, the use of tactics to undermine people with legitimate concerns and ideas are intolerable, whether it is to hush a member of the left, right, or an independent. Voices who are not showing outright hatred, or advocating for violence are not the same as voices to those who legitimately have the right to speak their mind. 

     Occasionally, members of the radical left do not allow for free speech, as is becoming more prevalent on college campuses. They attempt to silence opposition by using pejoratives, social pressures, college codes and rules, and shouting at or protesting speakers who are invited to the campus. These tactics attempt to primarily appeal to human’s good will. When an individual is considered bigoted, hateful, and unaccepting, they are looked down upon by others for being intolerant. These generally well-wishing people do all they can to help marginalized groups, and by claiming someone is against a group that is disadvantaged, that person is discredited. By using pejoratives, such as homophobic, further discussion is stifled. 

     James Fiore gives a very pertinent example of pejoratives being used to silence when he talks about a rape accusation in Canada. Even after proof had come out that the accessor had lied under oath, or that there were major inconsistencies in her story, members of the public who presumed that the man was innocent until proven guilty were labeled as a “contributor to rape culture” (Fiore). Similar accusations of prejudice are thrown at critics of Black Lives Matter, who are considered racist against black Americans, even if they only denounced the violent rhetoric of some Black Lives Matter leaders, like Yusra Khogali of Black Lives Matter Toronto. Is it racist to call out a woman who states on Facebook that “white skin is sub-humxn” and that “whiteness is not humxness” (Khogali)? 

     It seems that the accusations of racism and other -isms are rooted in a usage of social pressure. By using these labels, the person being labeled is not taken seriously, despite the actual content of their speech. Social pressures surround groups considered marginalized. If criticism is pointed at these groups, I can be interpreted as an attack on that group, therefore hateful speech, and then that person is a bigot. These tactics can also be used to poison the well of a speaker. An example of poisoning the well was attempted by the McMaster Student’s Union with Dr. Jordan Peterson. In an official statement, the union stated that, in regards to trans and gender-non-conforming people, Peterson desires to “uphold the status quo” and thinks that that his endeavors to do this “trumps the rights of others to exist in public spaces and be treated with respect and dignity” (McMaster Student’s Union). However, Dr. Peterson has never stated that either of these groups do not have the right to exist in public spaces, or should not be treated respectfully. By saying these things, the Student’s Union tries to delegitimize anything that Dr. Peterson may say in the future based on a false accusation. By doing this, pressure can be put on Peterson’s other ideas and they too can be painted with a broad brush of transphobia. 

      Restrictions on speech can be more stringent than just social interactions, the administration of campuses can also be pressured into rules and demands proposed by student groups. In a recent list of demands at the University of Maryland, 25 student groups gave some reasonable requests (Strauss). However, others were very anti-free speech. Some concerning demands given were “immediate response to hate speech or actions from the University including a consequence (e.g. mark on transcript, potential suspension)” and “measures to prevent situations similar to the ‘American Sniper’ situation from happening again” (Strauss). The first demand concerns a easily malleable, somewhat subjective, and contentious topic of hate speech. However, hate speech and acts attribute motive when motive is not always present. The presented consequences of potential suspension or a mark on the transcript of the student is a long-lasting label that should be carefully considered before the student is charged. The “American Sniper” situation occurred when the film was set to be shown at the college and Muslim student organizations protested it, stating that it dehumanized Muslims. This is a point of contention because, it restricts freedom of expression as well in art. What is deemed non-offensive and can be shown and what is not appropriate. 

     Another college rule is not a point of what can be said, but where it can be said. Free speech zones are ways in which free speech is limited in place, and sometimes in content. Grand Valley State University in Michigan had free speech zones like this, but these zones made up “about .02 percent of its total area” (Leef). Even then, students must obtain permission to speak in these free speech zones. During October 2016, group of students went outside of the zone to roll around a large beach ball and talk about Constitutional free speech to other students. Officials intervened and said they would be arrested for trespassing and receive penalties under the Code of Conduct for Students (Leef). This is a clear attack on free speech for both left and right individuals it would seem. This seemed true until Donald Trump was elected to be president. Protests of his election were held on the campus, but there was no attempt to stop them, they were allowed to protest outside of the free speech zones (Leef). This is very clear viewpoint discrimination as well as an infringement of the former group of student’s freedoms. 

     An even more controlling tactic is used by the radical left on college campuses than using college rules and codes. Against invited speakers who are anti-left, the use of heckling and shouting down is common. A very recent event of this was Jordan Peterson at McMaster University. Students at McMaster shouted insults at Dr. Peterson as the three other panel members and the moderator until they left while Peterson continued trying to give a talk for the student group who invited him. The protestors went inside the room the talk was being held in, began ringing cowbells, blowing airhorns, making various noises, and chanting. Some of the phrases being chanted at Peterson included “shame, shame, shame on you,” “transphobic piece of shit,” and “shut him down.” These are not phrases indicative of a group of people willing to let an opposing opinion speak, much less have a productive debate. These are words used to silence through intimidation and not allowing their literal voice to be heard due to all the background noise. The same members of the radical left who propose great tolerance and acceptance of others seem to be the first to shut someone down for their opposition to them. 

     An even worse event occurred at the University of Berkeley when protests morphed into rioting on the campus over very controversial speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos. Fireworks and rocks were used by rioters against police. Molotov cocktails ignited fires, and windows were smashed. Signs being held by over 1,500 protesters “read: ‘No safe space for racists’ and ‘This is war’” (Park and Lah). Due to all of the damages and violence, the event was cancelled even before Milo was set to speak at the college. This is not only emotional students and professional protestors who saw this as a good thing, faculty of Berkeley tried to justify the riots. An asocial professor of French said that the “Black Bloc” was “very well-organized and very efficient,” “destroying just enough University property to obtain the cancelation order” (Donald). This professor does not condemn their actions in shutting him down though violence to stop his opinions, she merely says that the Black Bloc did a good job canceling the event. This is not indicative of a place where all opinions are welcome and free speech is a priority, from that statement it seems as if academic totalitarianism is what that professor desires. In a petition to the administration, various other professors stated that Yiannopoulos’s speech “actually harm[s] students,” however, they fall oddly silent when a woman is pepper sprayed by a protester or when private property is utterly destroyed (Donald). With professors like this, students who take a professor’s words to heart do not learn to tolerate other ideas, they learn to tolerate those they agree with persecute those who disagree. 

     Free speech is a vital right to protect, not only for one’s allies, but their adversaries as well. In fact, free speech is what allowed groups that are seen as marginalized today to bring up their grievances in a meaningful discussion and show the public their struggles. Even then, marginalized groups change, they are not perpetually disadvantaged. For example, in the past Catholics were discriminated against and persecuted in America. If free speech is not upheld, it would be much harder to find out if new groups are being held back. 

     It is imperative that everyone can share ideas because no matter how much they are censored, fringe groups will still believe them. Take the flat Earth theory, which has been debunked time and time again. Some small, fringe, groups still state that the Earth is flat and the governments of the world conspire to hide that from the public. There can be a middle ground between curtailing speech that legitimately harms marginalized groups and keeping free speech, but attempting to stop people from using their already established freedoms is not the correct way to help anyone.

  