On Tuesday, November 10th, the College Historical Society (Hist) presented Hunter Biden with the Gold Medal for Outstanding Contribution to Public Discourse. At the ceremony, Hunter Biden was accompanied by his parents, Dr. Jill Biden and former US president, Joe Biden. Upon hearing of Joe Biden’s presence at the event, protestors gathered outside the Exam Hall. When the Bidens were leaving the building, some of the protestors threw milk at them and the Gardaí present at the scene. Two protestors also managed to break the security line before being apprehended.
I believe this incident exemplifies a serious problem facing debating societies such as the Phil and the Hist. Certain students don’t believe that people with opposing views have a right to speak and be heard and, because of this, it has become increasingly difficult to promote discourse, the fundamental purpose of a debating society.
TCDSU/AMLCT President, Amy Kennedy, addressed the protestors outside the Exam Hall, claiming that the invitation of the Bidens “is not what student led societies are meant to do”. I would argue that this is exactly what student led societies are meant to do. The Hist is fundamentally a debating society and debates require discussion between opposing views. This is precisely what the talk with Hunter Biden achieved. When Fionn Ó Catháin Ó hÁgáin, a Pro-Palestinian activist, interrupted the talk to confront Hunter Biden about his father’s involvement in the genocide in Gaza, Hunter Biden stopped security from removing Fionn and offered him an opportunity to ask his question. Hunter Biden then answered, describing the situation in Gaza as “absolutely and completely wrong”. Other students expressed disapproval over the invitation of Hunter Biden due to his engagement with online far-right personality Nick Fuentes. Hunter Biden was challenged on this point during the talk and stated his belief that we should engage with people we don’t agree with, to try to soften or change their harmful views. A situation such as this, where students can challenge someone with opposing views and receive a meaningful response, is key to the Hist’s raison d’être.
The protestors have a right to protest and a right to express their opinions, but they do not have a right to try suppressing other people’s opinions and stifle discourse. When the Students’ Union denounced the Hist for inviting Hunter Biden, they discouraged the Hist from inviting guests that the SU may find offensive in future. When protestors attempted to attack the Bidens as they left the Exam Hall, they only made it harder for the Hist to invite any potential future guests. The Students’ Union and the BDS protestors had a right to criticise Joe Biden, but they were wrong to inhibit the Hist in carrying out its task of promoting discourse.
Discourse is the exchange of ideas and opinions. It is essential for the development of a person’s beliefs. When an opposing viewpoint is presented to a person, they gain a better understanding of it, and when their beliefs are challenged by this opposing view point, they are forced to reconsider their arguments and address blind spots they were previously unaware of. At the end of this process a person is left with a stronger, more robust belief, or an acknowledgement of certain faults that can influence their opinion. Regardless, ultimately, one is able to gain a more informed belief as well as a better understanding of views they disagree with. Student activism that suppresses the expression of alternative views has left our campus with a shortage of opposing viewpoints with which to develop our beliefs.
Last year I served as the Pro-Secretary of the University Philosophical Society (the Phil). Alongside two others, I was responsible for setting debate motions and inviting guest speakers. Throughout the year, I experienced opposition whenever I tried to set motions that other council members disagreed with or invite guest speakers that the council considered problematic. At the start of the academic year, the Phil contacted Pan-Africanist public speaker, Dr Umar Johnson, to address the society. Dr Umar expressed interest, but when the matter was discussed in a council meeting, certain committee members raised concerns relating to Dr Umar’s controversial opinions, such as his opposition to interracial marriage. I, as the son of an Ethiopian mother and Irish father, argued that despite this problematic stance, we should invite Dr Umar, and anyone who disagrees with his views should have the opportunity to challenge him during the visit. Another biracial council member also supported the invitation, yet due to the concerns of other white council members who feared the backlash the event may provoke, The Phil did not host Dr Umar, ultimately losing an opportunity to promote discourse.
For another debate titled “This House Regrets the Rise of OnlyFans”, I invited two OnlyFans creators to speak at the event, feeling that without their input the motion could not be sufficiently addressed. Before the debate, an article posing the question “When Does Discourse Become Degradation?” was published by Trinity News. The article argued that the inclusion of said OnlyFans creators produced an opportunity for ridicule and it was irresponsible for us to expose them to this risk. This article pre-empted a potential harm that did not occur. During the debate, six speakers with varying views listened and responded to one another in a respectful manner and both the speakers and the audience developed more informed opinions by having been exposed to views they disagreed with. The article, discouraging the inclusion of these guests, once more attempted to stifle discourse.
In one of the last council meetings of the year, I raised a point similar to the one I am making in this article. I said that as a result of not including viewpoints that differ in any significant way from our own, we were failing to have meaningful disagreements and hence failing to facilitate discourse. After the meeting ended, a Senior Officer said that the Phil is essentially a source of entertainment and discourse is only a bonus to that. This sidelining of the society’s fundamental goal is a product of the hostility the Phil and the Hist have faced when trying to achieve this goal. Constant protest and scandal have caused discourse to wither away and be replaced with trivial entertainment. The protest against the invitation of Hunter Biden and the presence of Joe Biden will exacerbate this retreat from discourse. If we want to argue, learn and understand ourselves and others better we need to disagree with each other, and we need to be okay with disagreeing with each other.
