Last spring, I wrote in The Argus: “I think that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state and a right to defend itself from terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.”
So why am I opposing the part of President Donald Trump’s recent executive order to revoke student visas for international students that advocate for designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security? After all, advocates for Hamas, a barbaric terrorist organization that murdered more than 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023, or Hezbollah, which once bombed a Jewish Community Center in Argentina, hold a viewpoint that is antisemitic, offensive, and noxious. The answer: free speech.
In the 1919 Supreme Court decision Abrams v. U.S., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., introduced the marketplace of ideas theory to American legal jurisprudence, emphasizing the vital role of free speech in our society.
“Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical,” Holmes wrote. “If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition…. [But] the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.”
The marketplace of ideas theory is the cornerstone of a free society. Citizens should be presented with a multitude of different ideas, and those ideas should be discussed and debated. Ultimately, the best ideas or viewpoints will win the day: survival of the fittest. And bad ideas—like supporting terrorists—will lose. Proving this, a poll shows once again that TikTok is not real life: only 21% of Gen Zers said they support Hamas over Israel.
Furthermore, free speech allows us to see where individuals and the world stand. Greg Lukianoff, a free speech advocate and the President of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), refers to this theory as the Iron Law. This theory holds that it is more important to know where people and their communities stand on issues than trying to hide from reality.
If someone is open about their offensive or antisemitic viewpoints, such as support for Hamas or Hezbollah, that is at least a starting point for reform. This transformation, however, comes through dialogue, not the suppression of differing views. Take Daryl Davis, an activist who travels the United States and engages in direct conversations with members of the Ku Klux Klan. His experiences show that dialogue has the power to change minds and foster understanding.
“To understand someone, you have to talk with them,” Davis said. “I never respected the things the Klan members said, but I respected their right to say them, and over time, through the power of conversation, I helped change their minds…. When two enemies are talking, they aren’t fighting; when the talking ceases, the ground becomes futile for violence.”
Even if someone rejects reform and remains dogmatic about holding deeply offensive views, it is better they are open about that then to covertly hold them. These are the same people who may run for political office, work as journalists…or become administrators at Columbia.
“I want to know who the Nazi in the room is so I know not to turn my back to them,” Harvey Silverglate, the co-founder of FIRE has said.
Revoking the visas of international students who voice support for Hamas or Hezbollah could have unintended consequences. It may drive their pro-terror speech underground, making the possibility of changing these hateful views even more difficult. In fact, it could increase support for Hamas on college campuses among American students, who cannot be deported. Efforts to silence certain perspectives often unintentionally provide a boost for those views. The classic example is when Barbara Streisand unsuccessfully tried to censor a photograph of her beachfront home on a database in 2003. By trying to censor a photograph that very few people would have originally seen, she gave it an encore that made millions of people interested in seeing it. Hello Dolly indeed!
You may notice one phrase that I have not used at all in this piece: the First Amendment. Federal law already attaches conditions to student visas, which includes a clause that allows them to be revoked, if they espouse support for terrorist organizations. Legal scholars are conflicted on the legality of this provision; arguments on both sides are convincing. But regardless of these constitutional concerns, the executive order should not go into place because it directly conflicts with the purpose of free expression on campuses. If there is any place where a variety of viewpoints should be shared—even if they are offensive, wacky or nonsensical—it should be on a college campus. If someone does not like it then they should heed the advice of Justice Louis Brandeis, who remarked, “The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
If an international student provides material support to a terrorist organization, engages in discriminatory harassment or any other serious criminal act, they should face criminal charges and revocation of their visa. But not for their speech.
Blake Fox is a member of the class of 2026 and can be reached at bfox@wesleyan.edu.