McKay In response to “What we lack”

To the editor,

Jacob Martin and Andrew Breland might be excused for not knowing what an unsafe campus environment looks like. Statistically speaking, they will never experience one. However, they might be able to use the power of “innovative thinking” to imagine for themselves that they are people who might be the target of hate speech—and I mean actual hate speech, not criticism of their writing. Perhaps you are young, black, gay, new students on campus.

You see a noose. You hear a slur. Do you feel your diverse opinion is valued and protected? Probably not. It astonishes me that Martin perceives receiving a “personal email” as an attack designed to curtail the free speech he so clearly continues to enjoy in the pages of The Observer.

Martin and Breland’s article has explored new horizons in apologism and defense of hate speech. To my knowledge, the university has taken no action to prevent Martin from voicing his opinions. His free speech is in no danger. Both Martin and Breland fail to understand the fundamental difference between a right to free speech and a right to speech free of consequences (and, for that matter, a right to audience).

Cat McKay