Rivalries create some of the greatest life drama. Our state is no stranger to this — Carolina/Clemson, presidential primaries, mustard/vinegar/ketchup for your barbeque. Where you fall on any one issue can make or break you, your friendships, your family or — worst yet — your place at the Thanksgiving table.
Last month, thousands of parents dropped off their students in Columbia to begin the four- (or maybe five-) year stint at the University of South Carolina with the belief — and hope — that their children will be sheltered in a safe college bubble.
The reality, however, is that USC, like any other state university, is a public square for the marketplace of ideas, where some of the most hot-button issues confronting our nation are played out in real time.
Case in point: an upcoming student-hosted event roasting Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris. It features controversial far-right propagandists Milo Yiannopoulos and Gavin McInnes from Uncensored America.
The event’s announcement sparked outrage, with thousands signing an online petition calling for its cancellation over concerns about promoting “white supremacy” and a blatant sexualization of the vice president’s name.
As a constitutional attorney and a political strategist, we recognize that this controversy thrusts USC into the national spotlight, having to maneuver a delicate balance between free speech and civil discourse — fundamental principles that underpin our democracy — and the challenges we face in upholding them.
Unequivocally, the First Amendment protects speech that many find offensive or disagreeable. It’s not a bug in our system, but a safeguard feature that prevents the suppression of minority viewpoints.
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court in Healy v. James made it clear that, as government entities, “state colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the First Amendment.”
One year later, in Papish v. Board of Curatorsof the University of Missouri, the court went further to say that the mere dissemination of ideas on a state university campus — no matter how offensive to good taste — may not be shut off in the name alone of “conventions of decency.”
In 1995, the justices reinforced these principles again in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, holding that restrictions on student speech based on personal viewpoints are unconstitutional: A student or invited speaker cannot be silenced simply because we don’t agree with the message.
Given this legal framework, USC has acknowledged the student group’s right to hold the event while distancing itself from its content. USC recognizes that it cannot cancel the event based on the viewpoints expressed, no matter how offensive some may find them.
However, the constitutional protection of speech does not absolve speakers of moral responsibility or shield them from criticism. Organizers describe the event as a “fun, lighthearted comedy show,” but the provocative, disrespectful nature of this event and the use of sexually explicit language to refer to the vice president not only are tasteless and polarizing but also undermine the level of civil discourse we need in the political arena.
Instead of mocking and degrading public figures, particularly those from historically marginalized groups, we need to promote a culture of respect and civility, even as we vigorously debate ideas and policies. Nowhere is this more important than on our college campuses, which are supposed be bastions of intellectual growth and reasoned discourse.
At the same time, we have to counter the growing tendency to respond to offensive speech with calls for censorship. The petition to cancel the event, while understandable, attempts to set a dangerous precedent. Once we start down the path of suppressing speech based on its content, we risk creating a climate where unpopular or minority viewpoints are silenced, ultimately weakening the very foundations of our democratic society.
Rather than seeking to cancel the event, and playing into the provocateur narrative, those who oppose it should exercise their own First Amendment rights. Organize counter-events, write op-eds, engage in peaceful protests — use the power of speech to combat the speech you find objectionable. This is how the marketplace of ideas is supposed to function, and it gives university administrators and faculty the ability to play a more active role in fostering intellectual diversity and respectful dialogue.
As for the scheduled speakers, we urge them to consider the weighty responsibility that comes with the platform they’ve been given. Free speech is a right, but it’s also a privilege — one that should be exercised with care and consideration for its impact on our broader society.
As we navigate these challenging First Amendment waters, let us remember that the answer to speech we find offensive is not less speech, but more speech — speech that elevates our national conversation rather than debases it.
Our democracy depends on our ability to disagree vigorously yet respectfully, to challenge ideas without demonizing individuals and to uphold our constitutional principles even when — especially when — doing so is difficult. Even on Saturdays in South Carolina.
Let’s work to build a more perfect union, one conversation at a time.
Catherine Glenn Foster is a constitutional attorney in Columbia and Washington and president and CEO of Cateici, LLC. Dave Wilson is a political commentator and Executive Vice President of Cateici, LLC. Together, they are Executive Producers and co-hosts of “Connect to the Capitol.”
Comments are closed