Spring Break
In Defense Of Ann Coulter
Emily Salsibury
Issue date: 12/7/05 Section: Commentary
Tonight Ann Coulter will be speaking at the Jorgensen Auditorium at 7 p.m. Coulter's appearance was made possible by the efforts of the UConn College Republicans, with funding provided by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute and the Undergraduate Student Government (USG).
Coulter is arguably one of the most controversial speakers the College Republicans, or the university as a whole, has ever hosted. This, however, has no bearing on whether or not a speaker like Coulter is an appropriate choice to bring to UConn. One of the goals of College Republicans is to promote conservatism on campus. This is undoubtedly difficult at a university in which a staggering majority of the students and faculty are liberal. This goal is also hindered by the growing amounts of apathetic students who do not get involved in campus or seem to care about politics. We, therefore, see it as a good thing to stir up some controversy to draw a crowd. In bringing Coulter, the College Republicans hope to motivate students to intellectual discourse that would not otherwise occur in the advent of a lesser-known speaker. Perhaps it is fair to say we have already accomplished this goal.
Controversy does not mean hate speech or racism. Coulter has no documented history of hate speech at any of her numerous speaking engagements. Hate speech is speech that is designed to frighten its target or incite violence against them and Coulter is guilty of neither. How, then, could Coulter be accused of violating such restrictions? Furthermore, the university has no official designation of what constitutes hate speech and does not impose any restrictions on its speakers.
To define a speech as hateful or racist simply because you do not agree with the point of view is a lowbrow tactic. It is ironic that some preach tolerance and diversity, but cannot practice it well. We must all learn to deal with dissenting voices, and this is just what Coulter is. Disagreement with a voice should never lead to silencing that voice.
Coulter is arguably one of the most controversial speakers the College Republicans, or the university as a whole, has ever hosted. This, however, has no bearing on whether or not a speaker like Coulter is an appropriate choice to bring to UConn. One of the goals of College Republicans is to promote conservatism on campus. This is undoubtedly difficult at a university in which a staggering majority of the students and faculty are liberal. This goal is also hindered by the growing amounts of apathetic students who do not get involved in campus or seem to care about politics. We, therefore, see it as a good thing to stir up some controversy to draw a crowd. In bringing Coulter, the College Republicans hope to motivate students to intellectual discourse that would not otherwise occur in the advent of a lesser-known speaker. Perhaps it is fair to say we have already accomplished this goal.
Controversy does not mean hate speech or racism. Coulter has no documented history of hate speech at any of her numerous speaking engagements. Hate speech is speech that is designed to frighten its target or incite violence against them and Coulter is guilty of neither. How, then, could Coulter be accused of violating such restrictions? Furthermore, the university has no official designation of what constitutes hate speech and does not impose any restrictions on its speakers.
To define a speech as hateful or racist simply because you do not agree with the point of view is a lowbrow tactic. It is ironic that some preach tolerance and diversity, but cannot practice it well. We must all learn to deal with dissenting voices, and this is just what Coulter is. Disagreement with a voice should never lead to silencing that voice.