The White Nationalist on Campus: Re-examining University Free Speech and Leading Through Crisis

Case Narrative

Indeed, the cost of a college education is high. President of the University of Florida (UF), Kent Fuchs (pronounced “FOX”), knew this all too well. Somewhere in between academic freedom, freedom of speech, safety, and legal obligations lay a decision to allow or prohibit self-proclaimed White nationalist Richard Spencer to speak on campus. Spencer’s group, the National Policy Institute, had already requested a speaking venue on campus 1 month earlier. UF denied that request in light of a White nationalist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, that left three people dead and many others injured and arrested. Nevertheless, 1 month later, Spencer was again attempting to reserve space on campus.

Although popular among students and faculty alike, President Fuchs had become a target for malicious personal and professional attacks since Spencer had first declared his intention to speak at the university. Fuchs encountered calls for his removal and accusations of his support for Spencer’s views. Students, faculty, and community members all wondered how could a university president, with a responsibility to encourage diversity and foster equality, allow someone like Richard Spencer to speak at a respected institution of higher learning?

Sitting alone at his desk, President Fuchs felt as if he carried the weight of the university on his shoulders. Should he deny Spencer’s second request and face possible legal ramifications or should he allow Spencer’s speech, at great financial and emotional cost to the university?

Who Is Richard Spencer?

Richard Spencer was raised in Dallas, Texas, where he attended an all-male prep school. He would go on to receive degrees from the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago before a short foray as a doctoral student at Duke University. He began his political career in conservative circles, serving as the assistant editor of The American Conservative magazine and then executive editor of Taki’s Magazine, best known for their “tongue-in-cheek” libertarian articles (Burghart, 2014).

Over time, Spencer’s views became more extreme. He started to fixate on what he called “contemporary white consciousness.” This concept refers to the notion that Whites share a collective racial identity, with common interests and shared political goals. Supporters of contemporary white consciousness see the concept of White privilege as an attempt to unfairly assign blame to Whites for the socioeconomic status of minorities (Valentino, Brader, & Jardina, 2013).

With a budding sense of purpose, Spencer moved on from more traditional conservative politics to found AlternativeRight.com which became popular among those who embrace race realism, White nationalism, and the European New Right. Spencer eventually took over the National Policy Institute as executive director and began advocating for the creation of a “white ethno-state” and “peaceful ethnic cleansing” of North America.

Spencer has since become a modern figurehead for the White nationalist movement. He is credited with popularizing the term alt-right and banned from entering two dozen European countries, primarily because of his beliefs on the holocaust (Kunzelman, 2017). Spencer’s National Policy Institute was famously featured on national media outlets following the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. During a speech at the Institute’s annual convention, Spencer quoted Nazi propaganda, denounced the Jewish faith, and exclaimed “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory,” to which the audience replied with sieg heil salutes (Lombroso & Appelbaum, 2016).

President Fuchs knew that Richard Spencer had twice spoken at Texas A&M University: once in December 2016 and then again on September 11, 2017. He was invited to speak at Texas A&M, not by school administrators or students, but by a local Texan with ties to White nationalist organizations (Watkins, 2017). Met with tension and hostility, his September talk was interrupted repeatedly by shouts from the audience. Meanwhile, thousands protested outside, leading to an evacuation of the venue due to concerns for public safety.

Richard Spencer had also requested to speak at several other large public universities. Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan State all denied requests for space due to safety concerns. After each denial, an attorney for Richard Spencer promptly filed a lawsuit against the universities. UF would most certainly face a lawsuit if Fuchs chose to deny Spencer. The result would be a lengthy court battle and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs in a case that the university was not guaranteed to win. If the university lost the case, they would still have to host Spencer on campus. President Fuchs mulled over the possibility of legal action and reasoned that it might be a risk he was willing to take given the circumstances.

Why target college campuses specifically? Spencer and those who support his message believe that campuses are “bastions of anti-white propaganda.” He sees speaking engagements at universities as an opportunity to reach students who “have easy access to alternative information” and malleable minds that are prone to question the “nonsense they hear every day in class” (Strickland & Gottbrath, 2017). Denial of Spencer’s requests also play into his supporter’s narrative of universities as liberal institutions that brainwash students. These factors, whether real or perceived, motivate alt-right extremists to exploit egalitarian institutions, whose missions emphasize the importance of both free speech and tolerance.

Unite the Right Rally at the University of Virginia

Working closely with local law enforcement, President Fuchs studied the footage from the Unite the Right Rally that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, only 1 month prior. Organizers had rallied in opposition to the city’s plans to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee from a city park. During the rally, Richard Spencer joined crowds of angry men marching through the University of Virginia campus with torches, guns, flagpole spears, and flame throwers yelling “Jews will not replace us.” One man held an aerosol can and lighter, igniting a fire-filled spray. In retaliation, another man pointed his gun at the man with the lighter and fired it at the ground (Reitman, 2018). Protesters and counter protesters came face-to-face in the streets, throwing punches, screaming, and setting off smoke bombs and chemical sprays (Rankin, 2017). President Fuchs even watched the painful footage of a car plowing through a crowd, killing one woman and injuring 19 others.

The UF event would be Richard Spencer’s first public appearance since the Charlottesville rally. As a result, the university and surrounding Gainesville community had descended into a state of disorder and at times despair. The United Faculty of Florida, UF’s faculty collective bargaining organization, and Graduate Assistants United sent a letter to President Fuchs urging him not to allow Spencer to schedule a talk. They pointed out that the university had a responsibility to maintain a safe environment for employees at all times (Kirn, Ortiz, & Hegeman, 2017). Faculty, they argued, had already been subjected to racist attacks. The signs for the African American studies program had been repeatedly vandalized, and faculty and staff were cornered in an office and harassed by a known White supremacist who subjected them to an anti-Black diatribe until police arrived.

Alt-right activists had attended the Charlottesville event with plans to instigate violence. Violence and confrontation between activist groups has become a powerful recruiting tool for the alt-right, proving the “us against them” narrative upon which most of their membership is based (Oliver, 2017). While Spencer himself had remained silent about triggering or initiating violence, disturbing messages from his supporters were discovered online. Students found a post on a known nationalist website that outlined instructions for Spencer’s supporters in Gainesville. The website included instructions to, for instance, visit a bar in downtown Gainesville and find someone to provoke to the point of violence. The site made it clear that the instigator was not to actually commit a violent act, but through his actions, would embolden the bar patron to become violent. Above all, the instigator must remember to capture this exchange on video. Blog posts from known Spencer supporters also contained more direct threats such as “based on current political conditions . . . one can conclude that it is not only OK to kill Leftists, but it is the moral responsibility of a Christian to do so” (Kirn et al., 2017).

Fearing violence similar to that perpetrated in Charlottesville, Gainesville residents and small business owners expressed concern that storefronts and property would be damaged. Alarm had climbed to such furor that President Fuchs had taken a call from the Governor of Florida who was considering declaring a State of Emergency if Richard Spencer were granted permission to speak. Fuchs worked with his staff and local law enforcement, concluding that ensuring public safety would cost the university upwards of US$500,000. None of the costs for security could be legally passed off to Spencer’s group. To ensure safety, Fuchs would also have to close the university on the day of the event which would reduce pay for hourly campus workers, many of whom worked paycheck to paycheck.

The Responsibility to Ensure Free Speech

An engineer by trade, President Fuchs hardly anticipated that he might need to learn more about the First Amendment and the law on protected speech. Despite his deep concern for the safety of the university community, he also believed that universities and educators have a responsibility to protect free speech. Fuchs decided to consult with attorneys and legal scholars before making his decision. Specifically, he wanted to know whether there were legitimate Constitutional arguments that might allow him to deny Spencer’s request. Legal advisors agreed that the question facing Fuchs was the same argument that had plagued other universities: “how should the courts balance the competing interests of protecting the First Amendment rights of hate groups that wish to speak at public universities while ensuring the safety of students, faculty and staff who live and work there?” (Blevins, 2018).

Based on this advice, Fuchs posed the question, could he legitimately deny Spencer the right to speak if he could prove that his presence would endanger lives? In this case, the legal balancing test appeared to be skewed in favor of protecting First Amendment rights. The standard for speech involving potential violence was clarified in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), in which “the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it intentionally and effectively provokes a crowd to immediately carry out violent and unlawful action” (American Civil Liberties Union, 2019). Under this standard, “abstract advocacy alone does not suffice. There must be an intention to incite immediate violence against specific individuals in a context that makes the outcome likely” (Yudolf & Waltzer, 2017). While many of his followers had advocated for violent activity, Spencer himself had never directly encouraged immediate violence against specific individuals.

However, there were those who argued that his form of speech constitutes “hate speech” and as such should not be given the same amount of First Amendment protections as other forms of speech (Blevins, 2018). Under this argument, hate speech is equivalent to speech that is not protected under the First Amendment. Unprotected speech includes obscenity, fighting words, and written false statements that are damaging to a person’s reputation (libel). Unfortunately, courts have rejected this approach and held that “‘hate speech’ is not a legally recognized separate category of expression” (Blevins, 2018). The Supreme Court has afforded some protection for hate speech.

Finally, many argued that there would be violence stemming from protests outside the speech. Fuchs was also worried that an onslaught of local and national protestors and counter protesters would lead to violence similar to what occurred in Charlottesville. By denying Spencer’s request to speak, Fuchs would be committing what is known as a “heckler’s veto” where speech is suppressed based on the likelihood of violence or threats of violence brought on by crowds protesting. Initial court opinions on this topic were mixed, although more recently the court has sided against the heckler’s veto. As stated by Schmidt (2019),

the core concern with the heckler’s veto is that allowing the suppression of speech because of the discontent of the opponents provides the perverse incentive for opponents to threaten violence rather than to meet ideas with more speech. Thus the Supreme Court has tended to protect the rights of speakers against such opposition in these cases, effectively finding heckler’s vetoes inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Based on recent court cases, it appeared that the university could not argue that Spencer’s mere presence on campus would lead to violence and therefore must be prevented.

President Fuchs felt that to protect our own rights to free speech, we must protect the free speech rights of others. But what if allowing that speech could lead to violence? Universities are known for their willingness to encourage discussion and debate of controversial issues. Those debates are critical to the educational development of students. Fuchs wanted students to graduate from the university with the ability to analyze arguments and make their own, to develop skills for critical analysis and to think for themselves. He was not opposed to students hearing differing viewpoints and learning to refute them based on their academic merits. But what if the message was so vile and disturbing that it lacked any academic merit?

As Fuchs sat alone at his desk, he realized that Spencer’s goal was not to produce understanding, but to provoke a reaction. As the leader, the university’s reaction and the consequences of that reaction were inevitably his responsibility. If effective leadership necessitated a resolute decision and a clear path forward, that’s what he would provide. Fuchs went to his computer and began to carefully craft his response.

Teaching Notes

What seems like a simple decision to allow or deny a speaking request becomes a much deeper conversation about leadership, the value of free speech, and the role of universities to facilitate debate and critical analysis of controversial ideas and viewpoints. This case can be used to introduce a variety of controversial topics in courses that focus on higher education leadership and/or crisis management and communication. Students of organizational leadership might find this case useful when discussing Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames Model. For instance, the structural frame is illustrated in the university’s attempts to utilize the already present division of labor to coordinate efforts and overcome challenges. Furthermore, recent events have turned the spotlight on colleges and universities, which are increasingly accused of intolerance by stifling conservative free speech. This case can serve as a catalyst for a productive conversation about the wider responsibility of universities and free speech.

Likewise, this case may also be of interest to K-12 leaders who have confronted First Amendment dilemmas and wonder how the events of this case would apply to their school. It is important to note that the Supreme Court has made a clear distinction between K-12 and higher education in free speech cases. University students are legal adults and are less prone to the disciplinary problems that K-12 educators face. If K-12 school officials can prove that student expression causes “substantial disruption of school activities or invades the rights of others” (Dynia, 2017), then those officials have some leeway for suppressing that speech. An example would be Morse v. Frederick (2007) when the court ruled that school officials could prohibit speech that promotes drug use. This is not an absolute right however, as evidenced by the court’s ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). In Tinker, the court found that a school had violated the First Amendment rights of two students who wore arm bands protesting the Vietnam War.

It is difficult to draw a perfect parallel between free speech cases impacting K-12 and the issues affecting higher education in this case study. K-12 court rulings tend to prohibit speech and free expression that causes disruption, violence, or disciplinary problems while college and university students “enjoy more academic freedom than secondary school students” (Dynia, 2017). The court has ruled that, “the mere dissemination of ideas—no matter how offensive to good taste—on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency” (Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 1973).

Free Speech on College Campuses

Universities were once a focal point for protesting unpopular political ideas. During the 1960s, university students organized protests in favor of the civil rights movement, free speech, and against the Vietnam War. The perception of universities, and their importance to society, has shifted drastically since the 1960s. Once considered mainstays of free speech and the free exchange of disparate ideas, universities are now commonly accused of liberal indoctrination by insulating a coddled generation who are at best apathetic, and at worst, hostile to points of view with which they do not agree.

Recent events have led university leaders to re-examine the role of free speech on campus. Ana Mari Cauce (2017), President of the University of Washington, writes that debate of controversial issues is paramount to the educational experience and crucial for “developing citizens prepared to engage in democracy.” She points out that given the current political climate, it should come as no surprise that students have a difficult time with healthy debate on controversial topics both in and outside of the classroom. It is the responsibility of universities to prepare students to be both critical and knowledgeable consumers of information.

In contrast, others have argued that universities, by their nature, are organizations that foster diversity and offer shared visions of inclusion and fairness. Why allow a speaker on campus whose message diverges so drastically from the university’s values. After all, neither the students nor faculty typically have a say in choosing speakers. Hanlon (2017) writes that the knowledge and skills that we see as essential have changed and the practice of prioritizing certain types of knowledge over others “is crucial to the mission of a classically liberal education.” Furthermore, Calvert (2017) remarks that while universities must do more to protect the First Amendment, the recent trend of extremist speakers exploiting educational institutions and “holding them financially hostage” in the name of the First Amendment is “worrisome” and must be taken more seriously both on campuses and among policy makers.

Students of educational leadership can take this opportunity to reflect on the goals of higher education and consider the changing role of free speech on college campuses. After reading this case study, students should be asked about the future of free speech on campus. Are they worried that by denying free speech to some that it could eventually hurt others? Can Fuchs encourage faculty to use the Spencer incident as a teaching tool for students at the university?

Crisis, Leadership, and Management

Pearson and Clair (1998) define an organizational crisis as a “low probability, high impact situation that is perceived by critical stakeholders to threaten the viability of the organization. During the crisis, decision making is pressed by perceived time constraints and colored by cognitive limitations.” Researchers have linked certain leadership traits with the ability of leaders to identify and avert crisis. These competencies include efforts to “make sense” of a situation by looking at all sides of an argument before determining a course of action, managing the crisis as a participant, and creative use of resources and personnel to solve problems (Brownlee-Turgeon, 2017).

University presidents play both a symbolic and functional role, serving as crisis manager, consensus builder, caretaker, communicator and visionary, among other functions (Astin & Astin, 2000). Literature on university leadership stresses the importance of transformative or transformational leadership, and as such, many of the leadership tasks of university presidents are collaborative and interpersonal in nature. Universities have traditionally adopted a system of “shared governance,” and in the case of Richard Spencer, President Fuchs must balance input from multiple stakeholders. Fuchs, however, walks a fine line between seeking input from outside groups while making a firm and resolute decision about Spencer’s presence on campus.

There is no doubt that President Fuchs has a difficult road ahead. Not only must he communicate his decision but he must also consider the universe of information given to him by advisers, students, staff, and the community at-large. Effective “crisis leaders see the big picture, have an ability to link improbable events together to interpret a potential crisis . . . and have an ability to redesign an organization toward greater resilience following a crisis” (Mitroff, 2004).

One of President Fuchs’ first tasks will be to articulate his vision to the university and local community. His vision should include a decision about Spencer’s visit, a rationale for the decision, and a plan for the university moving forward. Fuchs’ must also ensure that this vision embodies his personal values and demonstrates authenticity and self-awareness. These attributes will advance his objective to gain trust and reassure stakeholders (Astin & Astin, 2000).

The exact message can be discussed and developed by students in a classroom setting and should include a strategy for communicating the vision. For instance, Fuchs’ message may come in many forms: an email to faculty, students, or the community; a press release; or a face-to-face speech or meeting with stakeholders. Regardless of whether he makes the decision to foster free speech or deny a hateful message, Fuchs has the difficult job of crafting a vision that both brings the community together and fosters resilience.

Discussion Considerations

Students are often curious about the legal precedents surrounding protected and unprotected free speech. Instructors may find it helpful to review some of the legal arguments and pertinent court cases before discussing the case (see the case synopsis for Brandenburg v. Ohio [1969], Terminiello v. Chicago [1949], and Feiner v. New York [1951] as resources). Depending on the depth with which this topic will be discussed in class, instructors may also consider assigning outside cases to students.

In general, First Amendment rights guarantee that the government will not punish or censor an individual’s speech. This does not apply to private organizations. For example, a nationalist group that is removed from a social media platform for breaking the platform’s content policies has no legal argument supporting their First Amendment rights. Public universities are considered an “arm” of the government, but universities have found themselves in a legal gray area when it comes to speakers whose mere presence has the potential to instigate violence. Universities also have a responsibility to protect students, faculty, and staff. Courts will often use the balancing test described in the case to determine whether silencing a speaker, or a crowd at a university sponsored event, is safe and legal.

UF did allow Spencer to speak on campus. Students may argue during the case discussion that Fuchs should have called Spencer’s bluff and taken him to court. It was certainly within his purview to make that decision. While Fuchs and many others wanted to protect the campus and community from potential violence, the university felt legally constrained by two details. First, Spencer himself had never threatened violence. His followers may have threatened violence, even toward specific groups, but the university could not make the argument that Spencer had instigated violence. Court precedent has consistently protected individual viewpoints, no matter how wrong or offensive, as long as these viewpoints do not incite violence. Furthermore, while the US$500,000 cost for security (the actual cost was around US$850,000) was very high, UF had the means to cover the costs. Smaller colleges and universities might not have this luxury, and in these instances, one can speculate that the court would rule in favor of a smaller institution based on the balancing test. As noted by Yudolf and Waltzer (2017), “[t]he courts will examine whether security concerns serve as a pretext for content discrimination or represent a good-faith effort to ensure order in volatile situations.” For more information about UF’s decision to allow Richard Spencer to speak, visit the following link: https://freespeech.ufl.edu/.

Discussion Questions

Before discussing the case, it may be helpful to encourage students not to focus on Spencer’s message. Unless it is the instructor’s intention, larger discussions about the merit of Spencer’s views tend to get off topic and lead to debates that are outside the scope of the case arguments. Encourage students to speak passionately about this case, but assure them that if a classmate argues in favor of Spencer speaking on campus, this does not mean that they necessarily agree with Spencer:

Class Exercise

Instructors can lead a class exercise that assumes that Richard Spencer has asked to speak on the campus where the case is being taught. If Richard Spencer requested a place to speak on your campus, what response would students hope to see from administrators? This exercise can be assigned as an outside individual or team-based project or as an in-class role-playing exercise. The instructor should ask students to imagine the class as an assembled crisis management team whose responsibility is to advise the president on how he should respond to this crisis. Students can be given a list of possible team members (university administrators) or they can choose who should be on the crisis team based on an organizational chart of their own university. Possible roles might include a chief diversity officer, a general council, a government and community relations officer, chief of campus police, a student affairs representative, a communications and marketing team, and the president.

If the instructor plans to conduct an in-class role-playing exercise during a 2.5- or 3-hr graduate seminar, students should come to class having already read the case. Instructors also have the option to assign crisis management team roles prior to the class session to allow time for students to research and prepare a position for their character. Once the crisis management team is assembled and the role of each team member is well-defined, the student playing the role of the president will convene the group to discuss the pros and cons of allowing Richard Spencer to speak on campus. The crisis management team will have one in-class hour to discuss the concerns laid out in the case and come to a decision about how the president will respond.

During the meeting, students should also discuss the role that different organizational units will play at the university. Jenkins and Goodman (2015) point out that an effective crisis management plan must clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the centralized decision-making team while allowing for flexibility to adapt to unusual circumstances and delegate tasks at the operational level. Applying this lesson to the Spencer case, a university leader may ask, for instance, should the Office of Multicultural Affairs be involved and what role will this office play before, during, and after the crisis? Should the Counseling Center or Health Services be made available to discuss the event with students? Should a simultaneous event be held on campus? If so, what type of event and which groups should be responsible for organizing the counter event?

Depending on course content, the instructor may want to add additional time for students to focus on Fuchs’ message and his options for communicating this message to the campus and wider community. The students who have been assigned to the communications and marketing team will help the president develop a message and determine the appropriate medium for him or her to deliver this message. The student playing the role of the president can then present the message to the class:

Online students can participate in a virtual role-playing exercise where they are assigned a role and must write a memo to the president explaining the pros and cons of allowing Spencer to speak. Instructors can also assign students the task of writing a communication strategy. For a more interactive experience, students can discuss their pros and cons through a discussion board or through Google Classroom.