What Free-Speech Warriors Get Wrong
A representative of a college invites someone to campus to speak. The prospective speaker accepts the invitation, whereupon the arrangement is announced. Dissidents object and demand that the invitation be rescinded. At that point, have the dissidents failed to respect norms of open discourse, healthy pluralism, or freedom of expression?
Some observers believe that in pushing for disinvitation (“deplatforming” as some call it), protesters are in principle doing something wrong. One influential source of disapproval is the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Since its inception in 1999, FIRE has comprehensively catalogued efforts to disinvite speakers. Its database is a reliable repository of information about scores of deplatforming campaigns and responses to them. Targets have included Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Mike Pence, Charlie Kirk, Alice Walker, and Ann Coulter. Most campaigns have failed to derail planned speeches. But some have prompted speakers to cancel (e.g., Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers University) or have prompted institutions to withdraw invitations (e.g., George Will at Scripps College, Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Brandeis University, Charles Murray at Assumption College, Rashida Tlaib at Arizona State University, and Mohammed El-Kurd at the University of Vermont).