Two weeks ago, amid mounting pressure from community members and activists, Arizona State University (ASU) canceled a speech that was set to be delivered by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. This was seen as almost unanimously as a win by those on the side of Israel in the ongoing battle between Israel and Hamas. However, this celebration is both misguided and short-sited.
For over a decade, conservatives have watched and been the victims of canceled speeches on college campuses. The general tone of the backlash to canceled speeches has been to proclaim that “they are canceling us because they are afraid of our ideas.” Referring to those of college age as “snowflakes” and making fun of them for retreating to their safe spaces became a running joke. Those speeches that were unable to be shut down were subject to the heckler’s veto, wherein demonstrators would shout at speakers, or pull a fire alarm to force an evacuation of the building.
These are tactics of the “tolerant” left. However, now that certain segments of the left are now aligned with traditionally conservative views, i.e. Israel, we are now in a moment where we find the same tactics being used to silence speech that we would rather not be made. So while we are sitting here and cheering the cancelation of a speech by an anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli (but I repeat myself) member of Congress, just know that the same arguments made by conservatives for the last decade are now being made by far-left extremists, and anti-Semitic Hamas supporters.
Following the cancelation of the speech, the Arizona Palestinian Network (APN), the group that organized the event, released a statement condemning ASU for canceling the event, calling out the administration for “blocking an expression of Free Speech that they do not agree with.” The cancellation of the speech also led to large demonstrations on and around campus. As always, the assault on speech in this country lead to worse outcomes. If the speech happens, Tlaib gets to perform in front of a group of people who already agree with her. Then it goes away. Now, it is a bigger issue. Additionally, if a pro-Israel group tries to organize a similar event, ASU will now find themselves in a difficult situation. Do you allow the speech or not?
Now I do hear you saying: “But Izzo, that speech was not canceled on ideological grounds; it was canceled because the APN did not follow ASU guidelines for organizing the event.” Firstly, for their part, the APN denies this allegation. In fact, they claim to have had this event on the calendar since the summer, long before Simchas Torah. It’s a bit odd that the event was canceled a day before it was to take place. However, let’s say that they were not correct, and the event was not scheduled within the guidelines of the university. Now imagine that this was a pro-Israel speaker who was canceled for the exact same reason. There isn’t a Jew celebrating Tlaib’s cancelation that would not be screaming anti-Semitism and demanding the resignation of whomever made the decision. I could hear you all now: “The administrative reasoning was just an excuse to cancel a Jew from speaking on their campus. You know what their real motivation is. This is blatant anti-Semitism.”
This whole situation brings to mind conservative commentator and noted Jew Ben Shapiro’s 2016 speech that was to take place at DePaul University in Chicago. DePaul canceled Shapiro’s speech in the wake of Conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech the previous spring. Shapiro decided not to test the bounds of the law at DePaul for preventing free speech because, as he put it, “DePaul is a private university and can make whatever rules they want. If it was a public campus, I would have walked right in.” What makes this story worse is that ASU is a public university, and is still exercising its right to cancel a speech, a speech being made by yes, a true anti-Semite, but also a current member of Congress.
As always, the answer to bad speech is not to have it canceled, but to combat it with good speech, with true speech, with speech seeped in fact, and not simply that ravings of a spiteful Jew-hater. Canceling speech just makes the canceled side more emboldened to continue their stance. And when this happens, more eyeballs are brought to that side than otherwise would have been there in the first place. Onlookers will seek out this argument and come to the conclusion that it probably wasn’t worth canceling, and instead of the message being cut, it will be spread.
If there is one lesson that the PR war going on now has taught us, it is that the way to keep the lies from spreading is to battle it head-on, not try to prevent the other side from speaking. That tactic will backfire spectacularly.
Izzo Zwiren works in healthcare administration, constantly concerning himself with the state of healthcare politics. The topic of healthcare has led Izzo to become passionate about a variety of political issues affecting our country today. Aside from politics, Izzo is a fan of trivia, stand-up comedy, and the New York Giants. Izzo lives on Long Island with his wife and two adorable, hilarious daughters.
