Letter to the Editor: Steven Salaita’s words not incitement, should not be censored

In a submission titled “University irresponsible for inviting controversial speaker to campus,” published on Nov. 5, Natalie Charney condemns several academic departments at UCLA for inviting Steven Salaita to speak on campus. She argues that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict constitute a “hate-filled incitement to violence.” But Salaita’s speech is not incitement and must be answered with reason, not censorship.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court held that incitement is speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” The case involved a Ku Klux Klan leader who threatened to seek vengeance if the U.S. government continued to “suppress the white, Caucasian race.” The Court found that because the Klansman’s words were neither intended or likely to incite imminent lawlessness, his speech was protected by the First Amendment. So too is Salaita’s.

The best way to fight hateful ideas is to expose them and prove them wrong, not to force them underground where they may fester. Labeling distasteful ideas as “hate speech” to justify silencing them is ineffective and unconstitutional at a public college campus. That’s why Harvey Silverglate, the Jewish co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, where I work, defended the rights of neo-Nazis to speak decades ago when he was an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. And it’s why I, also Jewish, support Salaita’s right to speak out now.

David Deerson is the program associate for campus outreach at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit educational organization that aims to promote individual rights at American colleges and universities.