Protesters attempted to control speech altogether

TO THE EDITOR :

Much of the discourse occurring in consequence of the unbridled protesting on April 14 superficially supports free speech and open academic inquiry but fails to address the core argument of those radical protestors: The beliefs of former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo's R-Colo. constitute hate speech and therefore must be suppressed.

The inherently subjective nature of hate speech however transforms prohibitions against hate speech into tools to silence political opposition through demonizing them for expressing their ideas. What one person might view as hate speech might not be seen as such to his fellow — just as what is offensive to one person might not be to another.

What these protestors really sought was the control of speech on campus; however we can't have controlled speech and free speech together. They sought to halt the political discourse which is essential to a functioning republic.

Moreover controlling speech strikes at the very foundations of this University as expressed in our motto" ""lux libertas"" meaning light and liberty."" The purpose of our liberal education is to lift our ignorance of the world and to teach us how to be free citizens which necessitates a free exchange of ideas. The actions of the protestors squelched this exchange" thereby rejecting the purpose of our university.

Accusations of hate speech which are intended to silence opposition as with prohibitions against hate speech are antithetical to our nation and antithetical to our university.

We must assert our support of free speech and oppose these protestors that would end free speech through regulation.



Anthony Dent

First-year

Economics