As you may recall, several weeks ago, Gwyn Sise ’19, Phoebe Keyes ’19, and I organized a silent protest denouncing Paul Gottfried’s appearance in two classes, one in the Government department and the other in the History department. We were shocked by the response we received, including the Student Assembly statement defending free speech and the controversial Letter to the Editor written by Professor Paquette, who brought Paul Gottfried to campus. After our protest, we faced a lot of backlash for the simple belief that hate speech should never be endorsed. Rather than looking back at past events, I would prefer to directly address President Wippman’s statement in his recent email to the campus.

Paul Gottfried came over a month ago. President Wippman has no excuse for the College’s late statement regarding the issue. The email went out well past the point of being relevant or making an impact. Of course, “making an impact” would assume that President Wippman actually made a statement that denounced hate. Similar to every conversation that has been had regarding Gottfried’s presence on campus, President Wippman made a short statement denouncing racism, followed by a lengthy statement about the importance of free speech and professorial autonomy.

Towards the end of his email, Wippman wrote, “I am also committed, as a matter of deep personal conviction as well as institutional values, to promoting an environment that fosters diversity and inclusion and supports and respects all members of our community.” While this sentiment is good, it is said without clear and careful thought. Yes, we should foster an open community, but can that community be fostered if hate speech is accepted and allowed under the guise of free speech?

White nationalists are not a political group. They are a hate group, as demonstrated in Charlottesville over this past summer. They are not Republicans or conservatives looking to share their views on the economy. They are a terrorist group that uses their right to free speech to incite and promote violence and hatred.

In an article written in the

Chronicle of Higher Education

titled, “How Universities Embolden White Nationalists,” Marcia Chatelain argues that by defending the First Amendment to the point of openly allowing hate speech on campuses, universities and faculty are endorsing white nationalist ideologies and putting marginalized students at great risk for mental health issues and self-harm.

In the article, Chatelain cites a compelling point made by a university professor, who says, “‘Some people believe that all people are created equal. Some other people believe in racial superiority,’ says the professor. Yes, these are two ostensible sides of an issue, but the disparate impact and consequences of these ideas when they have been codified in the law require clarity and explanation.”

By defending Paul Gottfried’s right to free speech, President Wippman and many other people in our community are defending a man who has inspired a terrorist movement. The conversation, in fact, is reminiscent of President Trump’s insistence that there were two sides to the events of Charlottesville, as if these sides were comparable.

I cannot say I am surprised that President Wippman is using the idea of a professor’s autonomy, which is important, to redirect the issue. Our administration allowed an outside institution - — which is not officially tied to the College — the Alexander Hamilton Institute, and one professor, Professor Paquette, to have far too much say in the curriculum of two classrooms.

There must be a line that is drawn. Hate speech that incites violence is too dangerous to be allowed. Our institution would never invite or endorse having David Duke, ex-leader of the KKK, talk about racism in America. How is allowing a man who has a direct influence on the alt-right movement more acceptable?