Colleges struggle to address on-campus political extremism

Seven days after hundreds of white nationalists paraded tiki torches through the University of Virginia campus, Shaun R. Harper, an expert on race and education, stood before the school’s faculty and asked who had been disgusted by the white supremacy on display. Almost every hand rose.

He nodded slowly.

“Well, then do something about it,” he said.

But as students return to campuses nationwide this week, administrators are grappling with what that “something” should be.

The racist violence last month in Charlottesville, Virginia, only punctuated a dramatic spike in white supremacist activity on U.S. campuses that has forced a reckoning among competing values: safety, free speech and a commitment to tolerance and diversity. Some universities, fearing further violence, have responded by squarely prioritizing safety over expression, risking a collision with the First Amendment. Others are reviewing campus safety plans or seeking to counter white supremacists’ message by starting conversations about diversity.

“When we talk about recruitment and the potential for violence, it is because the trends tell us this is a problem,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, the chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League. “You saw it play out in Charlottesville.”

His organization cataloged 115 incidents of white supremacist propaganda on U.S. campuses between January and April, up from nine during the same four months in 2016. And domestic extremists killed more people in 2016 than in any other year except for 1995 — the year of the Oklahoma City bombing — since the group began keeping track of such statistics in 1970.

James Alex Fields Jr., who is accused of driving into a crowd of counter-protesters in Charlottesville and killing a woman, was photographed at the rally holding a shield with a logo Vanguard America, a leading white supremacist recruiter on college campuses.

“These extremists feel emboldened in the current political climate, and they openly boast about efforts to create a physical presence on campuses, where students are engaged in the war of ideas,” Greenblatt said.

Last December, Texas A&M University was part of that battlefield. Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist who led the Charlottesville torch bearers, gave a speech in a Texas A&M lecture hall, sparking protests that resulted in two arrests. Spencer was expected to speak again next week at a “White Lives Matter” event on the College Station campus, but the university’s president, Michael K. Young, canceled the event, citing the advertisement headline “Today Charlottesville, Tomorrow Texas A&M.”

Spencer’s venue requests for the fall semester have also been rejected at Pennsylvania State University, Michigan State University, Louisiana State University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Florida. Florida’s president, W. Kent Fuchs, wrote in a statement that “the First Amendment does not require a public institution to risk imminent violence to students and others.”

But free speech advocates have pushed back. Since 2014, at least seven states have instituted campus free speech laws, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts, reinforcing the general law with penalties for campuses or students who suppress free expression. Just this year, lawmakers in 22 states considered similar bills, according to the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

Such laws could apply to incidents similar to last spring’s cancellation of a speech by the divisive right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley. The school canceled the visit after demonstrators set fires to protest his appearance. Yiannopoulos is expected to return to the campus for a week of free speech rallies in the public plaza this fall.

“It’s unlikely that courts will allow public universities to engage in obvious viewpoint discrimination, even when those views are extremely unpopular,” said Robert Shibley, the executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a free speech group. “Speakers also may not be banned, or charged more for security, based on the expected reaction of their political opponents.”

Such was the ruling in April, when Auburn University attempted to cancel a contract permitting Spencer’s use of a school auditorium for a speech. A federal judge overturned the decision, citing the First Amendment, and the event took place amid raucous protests, resulting in three disorderly conduct arrests.

This semester, Auburn is trying a contrasting approach, starting a speaker series and dialogue program on “intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas” to engage with tense conversations before they breed violence.

“Experience informs strategy,” said Taffye Benson Clayton, the vice president and associate provost for diversity and inclusion at the school, reflecting on the lawsuit. “It’s about engaging with people who think differently, in ways that are constructive. If anything, Spencer and Charlottesville has really intensified our resolve.”

Schools are preparing in other ways: Dozens of college presidents have sent letters to incoming students to reiterate their commitment to tolerance. The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators — which has held trainings on preparing for polarizing campus visits — will host an October series to examine hate groups.

And Teresa A. Sullivan, the president of the University of Virginia, announced that the school would hire groups to review the campus’ safety infrastructure and policy on open flames. She also formed a group charged with evaluating the school’s response to the events in Charlottesville, following criticism.

One early aspect of the response — Sullivan’s initial four-sentence message posted on the school’s website after the Friday night march — excluded any mention of racism, simply referring to the violence as “entirely inconsistent with the university’s values.” To Harper, the race and education specialist, nonspecific language — particularly in the midst of crisis — is part of the problem.

“Presidents and senior administrators ought not issue statements that make no mention of race in response to incidents and crises that are undeniably about race,” he said in an interview. “To do so is a leadership failure.”