Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Students Keep "No Platforming" Contentious Speakers. Should They Stop?
Social justice movements should abandon the use of
As a political tactic, no-platforming is ineffective.
No-platforming shields students from reality. This makes them poorly equipped to deal with oppressive ideas that are publicly expressed outside of university grounds.
University campuses should be spaces that are neutral with respect to ideas.
It is difficult to draw a clear line showing at which point an individual or organisation has proven to be too offensive to be allowed a platform to speak. This makes it very difficult to create an effective no-platforming policy that is not arbitrary.
No-platforming should be abandoned because it is an assault on free speech.
No-platforming exacerbates divisions among students because those who support the visiting speaker will feel as if their viewpoints are being shut out by the majority.
No-platforming hinders productive discourse.
Universities should function as models for civic and civil discourse. Ideas which fall outside of the norms of proper civil discourse should be excluded from it.
No-platforming is a valid way to exercise free speech and counterbalance power asymmetries.
The 'no platform' policy operates to protect students from vilification, hatred and radicalization.
Universities are places of diversity. Promoting speakers that undermine the equality of rights for all with racist or sexist comments contradicts this enacted principle of diversity.
Students are the ones most impacted by what happens at their universities. Thus, they should have significant say over what happens at their school.
Providing the resources (and very often honoraria or speaking fees) to people who promote e.g. racism is a tacit legitimization of their views.
Should Hate Speech Be Legally Protected?
Should unpaid internships be banned?
Should Society Stop Using Facebook?