Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker delivered a graduation speech on May 11 for Benedictine College’s 2024 graduating class, stirring conflict for controversial comments about women and the LGBTQ+ community.
Butker suggested to female students that despite their degrees, they will be most excited to become wives and mothers. He then alluded to his own wife, saying that her life did not start until she began her “vocation as a wife and mother.” He then went on to allude to the LGBTQ+ community, and said that pride was a “deadly sin” that has “a whole month dedicated to it.” The address is highly debated publically, but many, including fellow NFL star Patrick Mahomes, continue to defend the NFL star.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison similarly has a history of controversial speakers on campus which raises concerns about who should and shouldn’t be given a voice at a public university.
UW-Madison is home to thousands of students, all of varying backgrounds. Though UW remains steadfast in its commitment to uphold diversity, equity and inclusion, some of the University’s past speakers have raised questions about how the University maintains these standards.
UW-Madison’s past decisions on campus speakers have led to student uproar, and mass protest across campus.
Most notably, conservative commentators Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh’s campus events stirred student protests due to comments on the LGBTQ+ community and other social issues.
But the difference here lies in the audience. Walsh and Shapiro were both invited to the university by student-led organizations where the audience was aware they would cover vital social and political issues — unlike Butker’s commencement speech.
UW-Madison’s defense of Walsh and Shapiro’s right to speak on campus utilized the same talking points as Butker speech defenders: the right to free speech. And though freedom of speech is a core pillar of American values, it also generates questions about when speech becomes harmful.
On a campus that boasts inclusivity and diversity, providing a platform to speakers who actively discriminate against current students elevates campus unease. During Walsh’s speech in 2022, the commentator screened his film “What is a Woman?,” a film that actively refutes the right of transgender people to exist. The event resulted in vandalism and protests all over campus, with students supporting their trans peers and denouncing the university for allowing Walsh to speak.
The university responded by essentially endorsing Walsh’s right to speak and screen his film on campus, as well as reaffirming their commitment to creating an inclusive campus environment. Further, the university reiterated that Walsh’s opinions are not a reflection of UW-Madison’s ideology. They called this their “dual commitment” alleging that they can uphold both concepts at once.
Similarly, when Shapiro visited, students protested and called for him to leave campus for his comments about trans people, as well as his statement regarding the ongoing war in Gaza.
Shapiro is already a highly debated commentator, who has made a career out of visiting Universities and other institutions to discuss his opinions, as well as host debates.
His invitation to UW-Madison from Young Americans for Freedom sparked controversy, hosting a talk called “Stop Being Apologetic about the Superiority of Western Values.”
Many of Shapiro’s talking points surrounded the war in Gaza, and included the commentator criticizing UW-Madison’s lack of condemnation for Hamas’ attack on Israel. He said a comment from Chancellor Mnookin was not sufficient.
UW-Madison is a public university with over 40,000 students from various backgrounds. Although the university is responsible for allowing the expression of all students’ opinions, no matter how controversial, it also has an equal responsibility to foster a safe and inclusive environment. A part of that responsibility is ensuring university speakers do not discriminate against current students or give a platform to views that threaten them.
But UW-Madison seems to have difficulty navigating this issue, often supporting the voices of some students over others, leaving marginalized students feeling underrepresented and unsafe on campus.
Legally, denying speakers in a public institution violates the rights outlined in the first amendment. As a public institution, UW-Madison cannot prohibit public speech, even if it is rhetoric that the student body may disagree with.
Despite the University’s obligation to uphold the right to free speech, there still remains the issue of the student body itself. Inviting commentators that incite violence and protest, or cause students to feel unsafe on campus, is ultimately controversial, and causes mistrust between the University and the student body.
Which is then more important: upholding the right to free speech or protecting students? Often, UW-Madison seems to lean toward the former, creating a campus environment that makes students from underrepresented communities feel unprotected by an institution that adamantly affirms their commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
This “dual commitment” UW-Madison attempts to uphold often becomes unsatisfactory for students, with many feeling violated or unsafe by University speakers.
Butker’s speech may have stirred controversy, but it has also led to much-needed conversations at universities across the country. UW-Madison faces the same challenge as all public institutions, balancing the right to free expression as well as student’s right to safety and inclusion.
Upholding both remains an uphill battle, as the University continues to struggle with inviting free speech on campus, while also creating an environment that is welcoming for all students.
Rebekah Irby is an arts editor for The Daily Cardinal.
