Y ou, sir, are killing us!” shouted one of the students, as fellow protesters flashed signs accusing Charles Murray of being a white supremacist and a fascist. One went even further, pointing at Murray and accusing him of “denying her existence” since she is a woman of color in science. The protesters had been driven to disrupt Murray in large part because of his book “The Bell Curve,” which drew correlations between race and IQ and has rightly inspired a lot of suspicion among academics. Yet, to suggest Murray, who supports same-sex marriage and is an openly anti-Trump member of the Republican Party, is part and parcel of the white nativist movement is beyond a stretch — it is a lie. The disruption of Murray’s speech at the University of Michigan represented a worrying national trend — activists erroneously labeling the speech of a controversial speaker as hateful to prevent a free exchange of ideas. These mischaracterizations harm the very causes activists seek to bring attention to, by driving away legions of supporters from moderate students like myself. If they must disrupt speech, they would be wiser to target the outspokenly racist, sexist or “alt-right” ideologues who visit college campuses. Murray is but one example of a mislabeled speaker — radio host Ben Shapiro, psychologist Jordan Peterson or even Claire Gastañaga, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, have been grouped together with the genuinely incendiary like Milo Yiannopoulos, or worse, self- proclaimed white nationalists like Richard Spencer. All have had their speeches canceled or disrupted despite their only shared belief being their support for absolute freedom of speech. Claire Gastañaga was even prevented from speaking at an event titled “Students and the First Amendment” when the ACLU announced its defense of the right for “alt-right” speakers to march in Charlottesville, Va. Perhaps if the anger and labels were reserved for neo- Nazis like Richard Spencer, the public would sympathize more with the goal of ridding these ideas from our communities. Unfortunately, the current state of activism leaves many Americans to fear that campuses have become completely intolerant of opposing ideas. After an Intelligence Squared debate at Yale University, 66 percent of the audience agreed with the view that free speech is being threatened on campus, a 17 percent increase from the tally at the start of the debate. According to a Pew Research poll, four in 10 millennials believe the government should be able to prevent people from making statements that are offensive to minority groups, so I shudder at the thought of my generation becoming future legislators who take cues from the activist movement. They would be working on a slippery slope — how can you truly define offensive speech if every individual’s tolerance level to verbal abuse differs? While I can understand their sympathy for those hurt by racist speech, I am more skeptical of the nebulously defined microaggression that could nudge its way into such legislation; policing this type of language would be virtually impossible due to the limitless ways one can claim they were targeted. It is important to understand the divide in reasoning that some activists seem to have compared to the general public, which widely condemns restrictions on hate speech. Some who seek to restrict speech apparently justify their belief with the notion that once words are perceived to be racist, they are justified in restricting it because these words can amount to mental and physical violence; in other words, it seems that those who defend free speech are condoning violence toward others. Since the police and administration aren’t preventing these attacks, it appears that some activists see it as their duty to disrupt supporters of free speech, sometimes resorting to tangible physical violence. This reasoning is flawed. Most students who listen to “controversial” speakers are interested in an intellectual exchange of ideas or a chance to sit in and attempt to understand the ideas of the other side. Yet, at some universities, these curious listeners have had to dodge the fists of radical protesters who equate dialogue or interest in the other side with the same vigor as a line of marching Nazis. Their other equally unjustifiable tactics: blocking entrances, seizing microphones and mocking listeners leads to an atmosphere of fear on campus — but not to their intended targets. Ordinary students are the ones who feel the heat — at Yale University, 42 percent of students and 71 percent of conservative students report that they feel uncomfortable giving their opinion on politics. This fear makes it harder for students to grasp onto their own unique set of political values, for they worry about straying too far from the party line on campus. At the University of Michigan, conservatives have felt this tension in their discussions, first- year seminars and clubs. After President Donald Trump’s election, hundreds of community members on campus signed a petition in response to an open letter by a student at the University, affirming that they, too, felt unwelcome on campus. We should ensure our campus remains welcoming of these students, and stand up to unwarranted claims that associates them or the speakers they show up to listen to with the same anger directed toward fringe racist elements in our society. C harles Murray — controversial social scientist — delivered a speech on campus Oct. 11, despite somewhat significant protest. This, once again, raises two questions we seem incapable of escaping for the foreseeable political future: What are the limits of free speech, especially on college campuses? And who and what deserves to be protested? To immediately undermine myself, I don’t think free versus censored speech in a traditional sense is actually the interesting question. Murray is allowed to speak on this public university campus, whether or not the University of Michigan’s chapter of College Republicans invite or sponsor him. What we as students, and many of us as activists, seem to be concerned with, though, is whether one should try to silence someone who, at best, walks the line between academic science and racism. There is a distinction — and a majority of college students agree with me — between intentionally offensive rhetoric (such as racial slurs) and legitimate academic discourse, even over contentious topics. My resistance to protests designed to silence one’s opposition applies only to this sort of dialogue, where our primary question can safely be “What best checks speech we disagree with?” In this case, I think the answer is often counterspeech, not protest. One of the forces keeping Murray’s ideas alive well past their expiration date is the allure of dangerous or forbidden ideas. I presume we’ve all met at least one person convinced that feminism is a grand conspiracy against men or that trans rights are just the result of wild liberal overreach. The same principle applies here: Some faction of people will believe individuals protest Murray’s ideas because they undermine the liberal lie, not because they’re relics from a worse part of our history. A response designed to produce converts, then, meets the ideas of Murray and others like him directly. There is a definite place for general protest and I want to reiterate that this is not a condemnation of those who prefer that method; I only want to argue that when people frame themselves as trying to bring up opposing arguments in a world of political correctness, meeting one idea with another will be more effective than trying to drown them out. Physical protections of the University and University security aside, there are few places as well structured for counterspeech as a university. There were several professors among those protesting Murray; would none of them have been willing to make a counterpresentation, debunking Murray’s claim or defending an alternative philosophy? What about our student activists, who have proven themselves in the past to be quite persuasive? A parallel speech would offer interested parties the critical opportunity to show up for, rather than against, something. It’s impossible to guarantee complete safety. One group divided, though, seems obviously more apt to dissolve into ugliness than two groups looking to be swayed. Each speech’s audience, thus, would be united in their demand from the speaker: Persuade me that you’re right, whether it’s for the first time or the fortieth time. Protest asks whether certain ideas are “permitted”; counterspeech asks what ideas are more persuasive. The ability to mobilize is important, but — and I think this is fairly universal — the end goal is persuasion. Our highly monitored — especially in public spaces — environment here, along with the ideal of academic freedom, creates a safe space for dangerous ideas. What do we have to gain from forfeiting a chance to convert rather than contain? Anger in response to people like Charles Murray is justified, and there are times when containment is the only rational course of action. Enabled here as we are to act politically, however, that anger might more effectively be directed toward winning the conflict of ideas. I don’t think Murray’s claims are hard to succeed against, but one cannot win a debate without first having one. If we are right, what ideological threat does a debate pose? The effectiveness of otherwise feebly constructed arguments comes from their framing. As long as one gives their opposition grounds to claim that they are being silenced for speaking the uncomfortable truth, not for espousing bankrupt ideology, they cede their strongest tool for argument. In the context of a university, winning debates will be more effective than preventing them. Opinion The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com 4 — Tuesday, October 24, 2017 REBECCA LERNER Managing Editor 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. EMMA KINERY Editor in Chief ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY and REBECCA TARNOPOL Editorial Page Editors Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Speech and counterspeech HANK MINOR | COLUMN Unjust disruption LUKE JACOBS | COLUMN Carolyn Ayaub Megan Burns Samantha Goldstein Caitlin Heenan Jeremy Kaplan Sarah Khan Anurima Kumar Max Lubell Lucas Maiman Alexis Megdanoff Madeline Nowicki Anna Polumbo-Levy Jason Rowland Anu Roy-Chaudhury Ali Safawi Sarah Salman Kevin Sweitzer Rebecca Tarnopol Stephanie Trierweiler Ashley Zhang Luke Jacobs can be reached at lejacobs@umich.edu. NATALIE BROWN | NATALIE CAN BE REACHED AT NGBROWN@UMICH.EDU Mugging at the gym COREY DULIN | COLUMN I can’t just get up and go to the gym — it’s a process. I need to get there physically and mentally. The Intramural Sports Building is an easy enough walk, but there is a ton of mental preparation that takes place before anyone swipes my Mcard. Anytime I go to the IM building, I put myself in a mood. I replay Cardi B and DMX in my head to get to a place where I feel slightly less awkward and misplaced entering the gym. I, like many other people, have a mug when I go to the gym. I try to make myself look tough, to look like someone you don’t want to mess with. My gym mug is completely different from any other facial expressions I make. People have a hard time believing that I can drive, so I’m used to trying to make myself seem less like a wide-eyed kid and more like an actual adult. I walk around campus with a straight face and tunnel vision, but when I go to the gym I take the look a bit farther. Picture me, a 5-foot-4-inch skinny teenager, deadpan with a slight furrow in my brows. This creates a look meant to intimidate, but at its core is my sad attempt to look threatening, a way to show I know what I’m doing, even though I don’t. Anytime I step into a gym I mainly focus on making sure I don’t do something worth putting in a gym fail compilation. I think that most people do some version of this when they go to a gym; I believe only a minority of society feels completely comfortable and confident every time they walk into a building and see weights, treadmills and other exercise equipment. Those Planet Fitness commercials get it — “gymtimidation” is real and most people suffer from some form of it. I can’t help but constantly worry at the gym. I wonder if I’m doing the exercise I found on YouTube correctly. I wonder if this exercise looks stupid or weird. I wonder if I can lift this weight without a spotter and if I couldn’t, I wonder how loud and how embarrassing it would be if it fell. Most of all, I wonder if anyone caught on to the game of pretend I play and who will be the first to call me out. If I’m going to get called out anywhere, it’s going to happen in the weight room. There I’m an easy target: I stick out because the space is dominated by guys and I look like I have no business there. I didn’t come with a weight belt and I’m not a muscular person. The weight rooms are my least favorite area of the gym and the whole place makes me uncomfortable. They have so many mirrors; they force you to confront yourself. You can’t stare blindly ahead like you would on a stationary bike or a treadmill, you have to squat and stare at your reflection. I don’t want to stare at myself but I also don’t want to be forced to look at other people. That’s why going to the gym after 4 p.m. is one of my nightmares; I can’t function during peak time. After 4 p.m., using a machine becomes a challenge because there are so many people. Also, as more people lay claim to machines, grunt and pace around, the more insecure I get. I know that this whole idea of mugging at the gym and the awkwardness and insecurity that comes with it is silly — I shouldn’t feel a need to justify my presence by making a face; I shouldn’t pretend like I belong. However, I do, and I don’t just do it when I go to the gym. We all act a certain way to try to look a certain way to fit situations in life. Mostly, because we want acceptance or maybe because of imposter syndrome. But regardless, we shouldn’t ever have these concerns. I should walk into places and situations without so much concern about how I fit in and whether I stick out. I need to get more comfortable taking up space and get over deciding if I belong somewhere. My scrawny arms can use the bench press, I can use the squat rack — I don’t need to explain myself. Just like I don’t need to explain myself or justify my presence in any other situation I find myself in. Corey Dulin can be reached at cydulin@umich.edu. Hank Minor can be reached at hminor@umich.edu. LUKE JACOBS I shouldn’t feel a need to justify my presence by making a face; I shouldn’t pretend like I belong. COREY DULIN Our primary question should be “What best checks the speech we disagree with?” SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan Daily for first-person accounts of sexual assault and its corresponding personal, academic and legal implications. Submission information can be found at https://tinyurl.com/survivespeak.