Education

Wellesley College Student Newspaper Endorses Violence Against Unpopular Speech

Wellesley College made news last month when professors declared “speakers with ‘objectionable’ views are not only offensive to students, but actually diminish their liberty.” Now, the student newspaper at the elite private college has taken it a step further – justifying violence against anyone who “either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs” to accepted progressive norms, saying “then hostility may be warranted.”

The shocking statement came in an editorial in the student newspaper, The Wellesley News, entitled “Free Speech Is Not Violated At Wellesley.”

“Wellesley students are generally correct in their attempts to differentiate what is viable discourse from what is just hate speech,” the paper declared. “Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government.”

The editorial board at the paper then ascribes a new meaning to the First Amendment. “The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging,” the demand.

The reason “hate speech” exists is that the United States is a racist country, according to the paper. “We have all said problematic claims, the origins of which were ingrained in us by our discriminatory and biased society. Luckily, most of us have been taught by our peers and mentors at Wellesley in a productive way,” the paper continues.

Do You Agree With The Wellesley College Editorial Board?

  Yes         No       

Login with your social identity to vote


As for speakers and student who do not conform to what the paper deems acceptable speech, the editorial says violence may be justified. “(I)f people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted,” the editorial states.

“If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others, then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions. It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students who may have not been given the chance to learn. Rather, we are not referring to those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so,” the paper concludes.