There is no shortage of fools involved in the latest free speech controversy at Columbia University. Mike Cernovich, the alt-right speaker who came to campus Monday night, is a fool. The claim that Hillary Clinton was involved in a pedophile ring run out of a pizza parlor is only the best known of the ludicrous stories he has promoted. That did not prevent him from describing himself as a “great journalist” during his talk on “The Rise of Alternative Media.” I suppose one could describe him as a charlatan instead of a fool. Indeed, why choose?
The Columbia University College Republicans, who invited Cernovich, are fools. One doesn’t like to pick on students, but the idea that one champions free speech by refusing to exercise judgment in inviting speakers is foolish. Devotion to free speech requires tolerating Cernovich, not inviting him personally. It is Columbia University, which enabled the event to go on, that deserves credit for honoring free speech.
The protesters that showed up, pushing through public safety barricades, are fools. Cernovich and his allies were there wholly to provoke and publicize an intemperate response. Laura Loomer, who took time off from her fearless quest to prove that the Las Vegas mass shooting was a ploy by someone shadowy to accomplish something or other, provided similarly sterling commentary. Cernovich wanted publicity. He got it. Fewer than 40 non-protesters, presumably including the College Republicans, showed up to hear him. The people who ignored Cernovich’s appearance deserve more credit for frustrating his plans than the protesters, who played into his hands.
The members of the Black Students’ Organization, who demand that the Student Governing Board stop funding the College Republicans, are also fools. Again, one does not like to pick on students. Quite apart from the principled and prudential question of whether one should empower the Board to practice viewpoint discrimination, though, about the only likely way to generate sympathy for CUCR is to turn them into free speech martyrs.
It’s rare to be able to say this about a higher education story but, in this case, the only parties acting sensibly, other than those who skipped the speech, are the administrators. They have made clear that the presence of a speaker on campus does not indicate the university’s support for the speaker’s views. Nevertheless, the university is devoted to freedom of expression. Moreover, while most protests are protected speech, those that “interfere with audience members’ ability to hear or see the speaker” are not.
Indeed, Columbia is now investigating 16 students for shouting down Tommy Robinson, a British fringe activist known for stirring up street violence, and for a strange campaign against halal meat. Robinson was invited, again by the College Republicans, to address an audience via Skype. Naturally, some faculty members—to complete our exhibition of fools—have criticized Columbia for discouraging the students’ “reasonable efforts to critically engage” Robinson. This critical engagement consisted of, among other things, “attempting to unplug the audio and video equipment.”
Columbia’s administrators are right to investigate and will be right, if the evidence warrants, to hand down significant punishments for students who violated the code of conduct. Although it is still quite rare for students or others to shout down speakers, it does happen, and not only to fringe figures. Universities and colleges cannot both claim that it is part of their core function to be homes for the free exchange of ideas but still wink at those who, whatever their motives, take it upon themselves to decide who can be heard.
