Towson University Office of Graduate Studies Responding to Hate: How Public Universities React to Alt-Right Speakers by Josh Guttman A thesis Presented to the faculty of Towson University Office of Graduate Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Science in Communications Management Department of Communication Towson University Towson, Maryland 21252 (December, 2018) DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my mom and dad, who supported me and cheered me on when I needed it most. I love you both and I can’t thank you enough. I made it through the Paper Chase (1973). *Rocky (1976) music swells in the background* RESPONDING TO HATE ii RESPONDING TO HATE iii Abstract This study examined how public universities who have hosted alt-right speakers on campus protected their reputations while also fostering a free speech environment and keeping students safe. Due to the First Amendment policies of public universities, they have a greater obligation to provide alt-right speakers a platform. However, alt-right speaking events pose risks among the university community such as violence and vandalism. These risks could potentially damage the reputation of the university. Through utilizing Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) and gathering primary documents from the universities, this study showcases the effectiveness of university strategies in regards to balancing a first amendment while maintaining student safety. The results showed university strategies that were in-line with SCCT were more effective at maintaining their reputations and keeping students safe. Hosting events dedicated to university values and engaging in the community protected their reputations leading up to and during the alt-right speaking events. The findings demonstrate an emphasis on community engagement and maintaining a competent security presence in order to keep the community safe while maintaining a free speech environment. RESPONDING TO HATE iv Table of Contents INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 3 Hate Speech .................................................................................................................... 4 Fighting Words ............................................................................................................ 9 Free Speech Movement ............................................................................................... 15 Kent State Massacre.................................................................................................... 17 Development of Shared Strategies ............................................................................. 19 Hate Speech Policies at Universities .......................................................................... 21 Free Speech Policies at Public Universities ............................................................... 22 Political Speech and Demonstrations at Universities ............................................... 27 Alt-Right ....................................................................................................................... 30 Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos Public Universities Speeches .................. 34 Situational Crisis Communication Theory ............................................................... 36 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 45 Method ............................................................................................................................. 49 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 51 Data Reduction ............................................................................................................ 53 Data Management ....................................................................................................... 55 Table 1 ..................................................................................................................... 55 Conceptual Development of Data Analysis ............................................................... 56 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 58 RQ1: University Initial Response to Alt-Right Speakers ........................................ 58 RQ2: Factors Taken into Consideration When Approving or Denying Speaker Requests........................................................................................................................ 61 RQ3: Preparations Made for Alt-Right Speaker Arrival........................................ 63 Figure 1 ..................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 2…………………………………………………………………….…… …68 Figure 3……………………………………………………………………………..69 RQ4: Emerging Principles of SCCT.......................................................................... 70 Attribution/Initial Crisis Responsibility .................................................................... 70 Crisis History ............................................................................................................. 72 Emotions/Prior Relational Reputation ....................................................................... 78 Crisis Strategies ......................................................................................................... 80 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 84 LIMITATIONS/FUTURE STUDIES ........................................................................... 91 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 93 LIST OF SOURCES ....................................................................................................... 98 APPENDICIES ............................................................................................................. 119 Appendix A: FOIA Request Example: .................................................................... 119 Appendix B: Codebook ............................................................................................. 120 CURRICULUM VITAE ........................................................................................... 125 RESPONDING TO HATE 1 INTRODUCTION The alt-right movement has been steadily growing since 2015, both online and in the general public. While the group does not formally define its mission, their conservative and white-supremacist views have remained consistent since its inception. Its presence has been felt at numerous political functions and events. As a result, concerns have arisen, wherein merely giving alt-right writers a platform could potentially legitimize the alt-right.1 Arguably, when an alt-right figurehead is given a platform to speak as an expert, that platform validates that writer’s work just by the coverage of the event, as well as the prestige associated with a university.2 Additionally, a university that provides a platform for the alt-right could damage its own reputation, because allowing the alt-right to speak could align that university with their views and force the public to question the institution’s judgment and values. Subsequent protests and demonstrations from students and alt-right supporters could also be a safety risk for students and faculty. These concerns could negatively impact the reputation of that university, causing their stakeholders, such as students, parents, alumni, faculty, and staff, to lose faith in the administration’s judgment, damaging its image.3 4 5 With the advent of social media and the proliferation of online news and blogs, it is imperative that a university’s reputation is protected.6 Therefore, a public university providing a platform for the alt-right could validate their ideas, while decreasing the reputation of the public university. As such, this 1 Mozur & Scott, 2016 2 Carroll & McCombs, 2003 3 Coombs, 2007 4 Barton, 2001 5 Dowling, 2002 6 Carroll, 2003 RESPONDING TO HATE 2 study analyzed the different approaches used by public universities to respond to alt-right figureheads who attempt to speak on their campuses. This study looked at the responses from public universities that have hosted alt- right figures as campus speakers. As examples, Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos are the individuals that were addressed in this study due to their popularity and the influence they have within the alt-right community as writers and speakers. Both Spencer and Yiannopoulos achieved their fame and status through their work as writers and bloggers, promoting alt-right agendas and being heralded by their peers as alt-right figureheads. This case study examined specific instances when Spenser and Yiannopoulos attempted to speak at public universities, specifically at the University of Florida (UF), University of Virginia (UVA), and the University of California, Berkley. Overall, this study examined: 1) messaging techniques of the universities, 2) target audiences and crisis histories that universities have to take into consideration when constructing messages, and 3) statements universities made