I’m sure most of you have heard some version of the following debate at one point or another: Is refusing to listen to hateful opinions a form of suppressing the speaker, or is it a valid ideological stance? This question has pervaded college campuses as of late, hitting home especially hard after the election of Donald Trump.
This debate gets understandably heated. However, I think there’s an important nuance to the argument that most people are refusing to acknowledge: Hate speech and conservative opinions are not synonymous. While refusing to listen to hate speech is, in no way, shape, or form, oppressing the speaker, refusing to acknowledge the personhood of those with conservative ideologies IS dangerous to productive discourse.I know there’s a lot to that sentence, so let’s unpack it, starting at the beginning—by explaining why refusing to listen to hate speech is not a form of oppression. Hate speech is any language that diminishes or denies liberties, agency, and personhood to a group of oppressed persons, or an individual belonging to an oppressed group. For this reason, people espousing hate speech often fit the hegemonic norm of a white-cis-straight person. The platforms both currently and historically afforded to hegemonic people have been, quite literally, endless. If you look at governors, presidents, administrators, professors, doctors—you see an abundance of white men in positions of power. These positions give them a unique ability to disseminate their opinions to a wide audience, an audience that other groups have not historically had at their disposal. By definition, these people within the hegemonic prototype are not oppressed.
The subset of them who use this position to espouse hate speech are not oppressed either. They can make their thoughts known on the television, in newspapers, in novels, and in classrooms. A refusal on the part of a sensible person to acknowledge their hate speech as a “valid opinion” in no way suppresses their voice. At best, it encourages them to rethink their ideology and question their reasons for taking stances that cause such visceral pain in others-at worst, it does nothing-the hateful speaker will be mildly annoyed, and will move on to the next platform.Not all conservative people, however, engage with or advocate for hateful rhetoric. While it is important to still hold these people accountable to challenge and combat the norm of hate speech within their political party, it would be a mistake to refuse to listen to them. A refusal to listen to these people is not only unfair, but it also promulgates the conflation between a refusal to listen to hate speech with a refusal to listen to differing opinions. The difference is important, and it’s one that needs to be made more widely known. Let’s think deeply about our stances so that we can communicate them meaningfully to others and actually make tangible waves in the realm of political discourse.