This past April, a preacher stepped onto the Stony Brook University campus. Although he wasn’t a student, that was no concern of his; he came here to preach. He stepped into the Student Activity Center (SAC) plaza, a high-traffic area on campus for students. With a GoPro strapped tightly to his torso, a backpack filled with various belongings and a sign ominously reading “WARNING TO ALL,” Daniel Lee, a radical doomsday campus preacher, held up the sign and began to speak.
He made incredibly hateful remarks about various groups and religions such as Judaism, those who are pro-choice and the LGBTQ+ community. All three communities are on campus and contribute much-needed perspectives to the student body. Suffice it to say, a lot of people weren’t happy about Lee’s presence on campus.
The University Police Department (UPD) allowed Lee to continue his controversial speech and kept him safe from students who were understandably outraged by his remarks. The students surrounded him, yelling and waving pride flags and signs in counter-protest. The more fuel this counter-demonstration got, the clearer it became that Lee was not welcome. At 1:15 p.m., after two hours of preaching, a UPD officer spoke to Lee and promptly escorted him off campus. Members of the Brothers and Sisters in Christ, a religious Stony Brook organization, followed closely behind.
This situation raises the question: is Lee’s speech allowed on campus? I was under the impression that hate speech wasn’t allowed on campus, as University policy states, “Harassment in an educational institution aimed at an individual on the basis of a protected characteristic (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.),” isn’t protected speech. I had no idea that if anyone made statements against Muslim or queer communities on campus, they would be allowed to speak until it became a matter of physical safety, illegal activity or harassment. But was that the case when Lee’s hateful remarks were spoken freely on campus?
This ultimately becomes a discussion about free speech. A free speech absolutist would tell you that Lee was completely within his rights to say whatever he wanted in public and was exercising his First Amendment rights. However, an absolutist in this regard is nothing more than narrow-minded, as the kind of speech Lee uses should be expressed in times and places where it can be talked about in an equitable manner.
When Lee yells at students and disparages religions in front of campus buildings, does he do so to have a balanced and structured conversation with students? It is important to consider this when we’re talking about controversial speech and the safety of our students, especially when the free speech in question is considered hateful by most. The school doesn’t consider how students simply walking by may feel about Lee’s opinions, especially when they have no intention of interacting with him.
Students shouldn’t be subjected to hateful rhetoric on a random afternoon on their way to class; that is not unreasonable to ask for. However, if Stony Brook has decided that Lee’s speech is allowed on campus, why not have a designated place for it? Lee’s speech should not be prioritized over the safety and comfortability of students. Regardless of how appalling students may find them to be, I cannot disagree with the fact that Lee has the right to express his beliefs. But there is a time and place for it.
Our country has historically used “free speech zones,” a cordoned-off area marked with signs that make it clear to all students that any manner of free speech is allowed within its boundaries. If ensuring campus safety is a priority for the administration and UPD, then individuals like Lee — who are not students but wish to express their beliefs — should be directed to areas where they do not disrupt students’ daily activities. If you want to preach whatever rhetoric you believe in on our campus, go ahead — but do it in a designated free speech zone that would be protected by UPD and regulated by the University.
Free speech policies on campus are specifically talked about in the “‘time, place, and manner’” restrictions section of the University’s web page about Freedom of Speech and Expression. Our University can regulate where and when someone speaks in order to preserve the safety of students on campus. They have done so when students were considered to have acted in a hostile manner toward other students while occupying a public space on campus. This can feel especially infuriating considering that students who protest on campus are treated in a suppressive manner by the UPD. Students protesting on campus face strict rules that limit how they can protest, especially when the protest is deemed “hateful”. Do these same rules apply to Lee?
The institution of free speech zones could be relegated to those who are campus visitors. These places should be easily accessible for students to view if they choose to, but not in the way of those who don’t. Otherwise, why are UPD and Stony Brook allowing people like Lee to spew such hateful sentiments? UPD should help students feel protected by not allowing people on campus who make them feel unsafe and uncomfortable for simply being who they are.
For this baseline idea, I contacted someone who is knowledgeable about the topic and has done extensive research on censorship within spaces such as social media. They have a YouTube channel called Streeter Sweeper, where they make videos that discuss the topics of school reform and homelessness in the United States. They pointed me toward a book, “The First” by Stanley Fish, and mentioned a particular quote:
“The argument that the more despicable the speech is, the more it merits protection makes sense only if we can be confident that when abhorrent views are given a place in the conversation, they will be exposed for what they are and rejected in favor of better views,” wrote Fish.
Is the place for such conversations in the SAC plaza? I personally don’t think so. Designated areas for people to express their beliefs would be a lot safer and welcoming for students and anyone else who may want to express their beliefs. Having a place where their views can be refuted and discussed without impeding the everyday lives of students should be a goal of the administration and UPD in order to prevent negative student-visitor interactions. No student should have to avoid a specific area of campus because they don’t want to hear that they are going to Hell for their beliefs. Someone who is queer shouldn’t have to see a sign that says “Hell Awaits” them while they are on their way to Dunkin’. University administration should consider how students feel about being judged by someone who is not even affiliated with Stony Brook.
For many, this campus is our home. Students like myself are here more often than we are not. We have incredible facilities such as the UNITI Cultural Center and the LGBTQ* Center on campus. However, safe spaces for our students should not only be relegated to areas within buildings, but extended to the classrooms we learn in and the places we decide to inhabit.
