[DanaC]

University campuses were once not safe spaces for african americans - indeed they were not welcome there at all. A speaker whose sole purpose for appearing at a campus is to promote a return to a time where african americans are not welcome in campuses (and other places) threatens the safe space that the campus has (hopefully) become.

Now - you as a hypothetical black person do not have to attend that person's event. But there are other people there hearing, specifically, about how you as a black person should not be allowed to study with white people. It would be promoting racism and making the campus less welcoming of you.

Similarly - if the science department invited someone to speak on why women should not be welcomed into STEM fields - why they are fundamentally unsuited to such study - that plays into an existing struggle for legitimacy and acceptance into the intellectual space. You as a hypothetical female student, do not have to attend that event. But others are there hearing about how you should not really be welcome at all.

In both cases there are a number of people out there who believe that black people and women have no place in the campus community. They are fewer nowadays - but they were once the majority view in both cases.

There is a difference between people saying potentially offensive things and people advocating a closing down of the intellectual space to those they consider inferior. Which is why I was supportive of university students boycotting and expressing anger at a group who invited the leader of a nationalist party to speak to students - but wholly unsupportive of the furore that surrounded a professor of genetics who made waves a few years ago when speaking about his belief that each race is genetically geared to different intelligence levels.

One is a fringe view that is no doubt offensive to a lot of people, the others are using the campus to spread a damaging ideology that makes the intellectual debate unwelcoming of particular groups within it.


[eta] a more modern example might be if someone was invited to come and speak about LGBT issues and was advocating that gay people should be cured, and that transgender people are an abomination in the eyes of God. That is free speech that threatens the safety and intellectual freedom of a contingent of the campus community - a vulnerable contingent whose acceptance is still at times a battle and who face physical and psychological danger from people who espouse or adhere to those views.

A psychologist coming to a conference or debate to argue that homosexuality is a choice because of X research that he did is putting forward an unpleasant and out of touch argument - but they should be allowed to make that argument and others put the counter argument.