Opinion – By Savannah Bloom
May 4, 2025
Campus activists successfully defended free expression this week by ensuring nobody could hear the person expressing it.
I believe in free speech.
I want to start there because apparently there has been some “confusion” following Wednesday’s protest outside Harkness Auditorium, where several hundred students gathered to defend marginalized voices by screaming continuously for approximately two hours.
Personally, I think it was beautiful.
The controversy began when the Institute’s Forum for Intellectual Diversity invited conservative psychologist and author Jordan Peterson to campus for a lecture titled Responsibility, Meaning, and the Individual, which already sounded problematic because it contained the word “individual.”
Students immediately raised concerns.
Why was the Institute providing a platform for ideas that students might disagree with?
More importantly, why were we expected to simply sit there and listen to them?
That is not what higher education is supposed to be about.
By Tuesday afternoon, the Coalition for Inclusive Dialogue had organized an emergency meeting in the Student Wellness Annex. After a thoughtful discussion, we unanimously agreed that dialogue would be inappropriate.
Instead, we developed a comprehensive response strategy involving whistles, portable speakers, coordinated chanting, several drums, and one extremely loud sophomore named Kayleigh.
The objective was simple: Peterson was technically permitted to speak, but nobody was obligated to permit anyone else to hear him.
That distinction is important.
Some critics have called this “censorship,” which is ridiculous because censorship is when the government prevents someone from speaking. We are students. We do not have a government.
We have committees.
There is a difference.
When Peterson arrived, demonstrators formed what organizers described as a “protective perimeter of democratic resistance” around the auditorium entrance. Anyone attempting to attend the lecture was respectfully asked why they felt entitled to expose the community to potentially harmful viewpoints.
Those who gave incorrect answers were redirected.
Once the lecture began, approximately forty students entered the auditorium and distributed themselves strategically throughout the audience.
Peterson managed to speak for almost eleven seconds before the first chant began.
“No hate! No fear! Fascists are not welcome here!”
It was honestly empowering.
Peterson tried several times to continue speaking, but every time he opened his mouth, someone activated a whistle or shouted “HARM IS NOT DISCOURSE.”
Eventually, he just stood behind the podium quietly while everyone continued chanting.
That was when I realized we were winning the debate.
Things became emotional around the forty-minute mark.
Peterson attempted to explain that disagreement is an unavoidable component of intellectual life, but Kayleigh shouted “THAT IS LITERALLY VIOLENCE,” and several people applauded.
He removed his glasses.
Then he started crying.
I know conservatives will probably manipulate that moment and say we “bullied” him, but I actually thought the tears represented an important opportunity for growth.
For perhaps the first time that evening, he was listening.
Afterward, campus security escorted Peterson through a service corridor while protesters remained outside chanting about fascism.
Some students have since suggested that preventing political opponents from assembling, shouting down their speeches, intimidating people who attend their events, and deciding which viewpoints are acceptable sounds vaguely authoritarian.
This is an extremely dangerous comparison.
Fascism is about silencing people you disagree with.
What we did was silence people whose ideas should not be heard.
I genuinely do not understand why people keep struggling with this distinction.
Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Sometimes those consequences include 300 people surrounding the building where you are speaking and making your speech physically impossible to hear.
That is democracy.
Democracy requires participation.
Sometimes very loud participation.
The Institute administration released a statement Thursday reaffirming its commitment to “open inquiry, peaceful protest, and the continued structural integrity of Harkness Auditorium.”
They also announced that future controversial speakers may be required to submit their remarks to the Student Coalition for Inclusive Dialogue fourteen days in advance so potentially harmful passages can be identified before anyone accidentally encounters them.
Honestly, this feels like progress.
Nobody is saying conservatives cannot speak.
They absolutely can.
They just need to understand that speech carries responsibilities, particularly the responsibility to say things that do not make other people uncomfortable.
And if they cannot do that, perhaps the compassionate thing is to help them remain silent.
That is not fascism.
That is community.
And I am proud that Baitman’s students were brave enough to stand against authoritarianism by making absolutely certain the wrong people could not talk.
About the Editor: Savannah Bloom
Column: Bloom’s Views
Savannah Bloom is a freshman Gender Studies major from Portland, Oregon, who believes most global issues can be solved with good vibes, inclusive fonts, and vegan potlucks. She’s passionate about intersectional justice, signage equity, and aromatherapy as diplomacy.
Her column, Bloom’s Views, offers bold solutions to complex problems, often involving crystals, Canva infographics, and a sincere belief that peace starts with a well-curated Pinterest board.
Article Comment Section:
