The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines hate speech as, “speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people based on identities such as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability.” Andrea Arletti’s employment of the term in his incendiary Op-Ed, Is Hate Speech a Threat? does not seem to be in congruence with the general understanding of the term. Arletti argues that “banning hate speech would create a bubble in which only selected viewpoints are allowed.” That is simply not true. One can engage in respectful debate and discourse, express one’s viewpoint and engage in discussion without attacking or satirizing the identities of one’s classmates.

Historically, members of marginalized communities, such as the queer community, have been victims of hate speech. The problematic element of hate speech is that it attacks community members’ well-being, which in turn may compromise both their safety and mental health. Banning hate speech does not limit the viewpoints expressed in a community. Rather, it provides a code of conduct through which community members may express their views safely without harming their classmates. The proliferation of such discourse impacts the whole community, not just the targets of hate speech. When members of the community feel like they are not afforded dignity and respect, the whole community falls apart and performs worse.

Arletti’s oversimplification of hate speech is the heart of his article’s problem. By arguing that hate speech is too subjective, the author implies that all diverging viewpoints will be excluded making us “no longer intellectually challenged or stimulated.” However, hate speech isn’t meant to intellectually challenge or stimulate. It is meant to degrade, demean, and insult others based on their personal characteristics. Hate speech is an ad hominem attack that has no place in proper intellectual debates.

As a student body, we can engage in respectful discourse as long as that discourse does not undermine anyone’s identity. A debate on the difference between gender identity and sex, for instance, emerged last year in the comment section on a confession posted on the anonymous Facebook page NYUAD Confessions. One group of students clearly saw gender as socially constructed whereas the other held a more biologically essentialist view. Initially, the conversation was handled respectfully with both sides expressing their views and disagreeing respectfully.

The respectful debate devolved into name calling. It finally became hate speech when one student commented about identifying as an attack helicopter, mocking transgender identities. When marginalized groups have to invest so much time and energy into getting people to respect them, discourse and critical thought are stifled, not fostered. Such rhetoric does not actually allow us to get to the heart of the issue and grow intellectually. Furthermore, it fosters discrimination against minorities on campus. A few weeks after the aforementioned cyber-attack on trans identity, a poster advertising an Anchorage lecture that was posted in a campus center elevator was desecrated with post-its. The post-its told students affiliated with Anchorage that the event was illegal, and that there is no place on campus for their community. Such an attack causes harm to both individuals’ psyches and the collective community’s health.

Arletti vilifies the protesters in NYU New York referring to the incident where conservative comedian Gavin McInnes was invited to speak at the Kimmel Center on campus by the NYU College Republicans group. The alternative, Arletti posits, is that the minorities that McInnes attacks should engage instead in “well-reasoned argument.” This typical urging of the targets of hate speech to engage in discourse is in itself problematic. It is not the job of queer-identifying NYU New York students to educate others on why discrimination is wrong, on how gender is a social construct or on how to use the appropriate gender pronouns when addressing someone. One is not obligated to perform the emotional labor of changing another’s viewpoint. Not all viewpoints will be changed and that’s okay. You don’t have to agree as long as you respect the community standards and principles of equal respect for all students.

Perhaps the incidences of hate speech against vulnerable communities on our home campus aren’t well known. Such communities may not publicize the issues, but rather choose to keep to themselves. Hate speech distracts them from their everyday lives and emotionally weighs them down. It’s not once or twice that they’ve experienced hate speech on campus but rather it’s a continuous degrading cycle slowly wearing away at them. By perpetuating the silence, they have been complicit in its continuation, but that is no longer the case.

When any marginalized group advocates for a safe space in this community, they are not advocating for a place that will leave them intellectually starved in a barren echo chamber of agreement. They merely want a space where they can exist, where people don’t question them because of their identities, where this community is judged not based on gender, sexuality, race, or religion or any other identity marker but by their intellectual prowess, athletic ability or kindness to their friends. A safe space is a space for all individuals to feel comfortable in their bodies, not in their minds.

Hate speech versus free speech is a debate happening across the globe and it is one that this campus has failed to fully engage with. As a community, we need to create a code of conduct when engaging in debates. While professors often moderate this during class, we all know that most of our learning happens outside of the classroom: in the library, the dining hall and sometimes even on Facebook. Andrea asks in his article, why should we bother? We bother because hate speech has happened on this campus and hate speech will continue to proliferate unless we stand against it as a community.