When Education Stifles Expression: The Misguided Ban on Drag Shows at Texas A&M
The First Amendment applies even to speech we don't condone.
In a controversial decision that has sparked nationwide debate, West Texas A&M University, under the leadership of President Walter Wendler, has chosen to ban drag shows on campus. This decision not only casts a long shadow over the university's commitment to diversity and inclusion but also raises serious constitutional concerns.
The matter was submitted to the Supreme Court, which recently declined to hear the case. However, this battle is not over as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to adjudicate the case in April.
The Supreme Court will not intervene to let students at West Texas A&M University host a drag show while their First Amendment lawsuit against a similar show’s cancellation is on appeal.
The court on Friday denied the students’ request for emergency action so a charity drag performance set for later this month could go ahead. The students have claimed an order preventing drag events on campus violates their constitutional rights.
“This act of censorship is predicated on nothing more than the president’s personal opinion that a planned performance on campus ‘demeans,’ ‘mock[s],’ and ‘denigrates’ women,” the students said in their original motion to the Supreme Court from earlier this month.
West Texas A&M University’s president, Walter Wendler, canceled a charity drag show last year that had been organized by members of Spectrum WT, a student-led LGBTQ organization. He said drag shows are “derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny, no matter the stated intent” and compared drag to blackface in an email to the university community.
As a public institution, Texas A&M is unequivocally bound by the First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all, not just to the forms of expression that align with the personal views of those in power.
At the heart of this debate is a fundamental misunderstanding—or perhaps a willful ignorance—of what the First Amendment represents. The beauty of this foundational aspect of American democracy is its unwavering support for all forms of speech, especially those that might challenge or discomfort us.
It's a testament to the strength of our convictions and the resilience of our societal fabric that we can entertain, and indeed protect, expressions that diverge from mainstream or popular opinion. Unfortunately, there are folks on both sides of the aisle who do not believe this.
Walter Wendler's decision to equate drag shows with "derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny" is his own opinion. But it is not a justification for banning shows that make him uncomfortable. Most do not view drag shows in this manner.
Moreover, Wendler's acknowledgment of his constitutional violation, as he pursued the ban regardless, is a startling admission of the prioritization of personal prejudices over constitutional obligations. In a blog post, he acknowledged that his actions likely run afoul of the Constitution.
A harmless drag show? Not possible. I will not appear to condone the diminishment of any group at the expense of impertinent gestures toward another group for any reason, even when the law of the land appears to require it. Supporting The Trevor Project is a good idea. My recommendation is to skip the show and send the dough.
This sets a dangerous precedent when the leaders of our educational institutions choose which parts of the Constitution to adhere to based on personal beliefs rather than legal and ethical standards. This selective application of constitutional rights undermines the very principles of liberty and justice that our educational systems are supposed to uphold and foster.
The argument against the drag show ban isn't merely about the specific event in question; it's about defending the principle that free speech is a right afforded to all forms of expression. The bottom line is that if someone does not like drag shows, they do not have to attend them. But they should not be able to use the government to stop others from having them.
When we start down the slippery slope of censoring certain types of speech because they don't align with the personal values of those in power, we risk eroding the freedoms that define our nation. Today, it may be a drag show at West Texas A&M University; tomorrow, it could be any form of expression that challenges, innovates, or simply exists outside the narrow confines of what is deemed acceptable by the few.
In conclusion, the decision by West Texas A&M University to ban drag shows is more than just a local campus issue—it's a national conversation about the values we uphold and the kind of future we envision for our public institutions and for our country. The First Amendment does not come with a caveat that allows us to disregard it when convenient. It's an all-encompassing protection that ensures every voice can be heard, every identity can be expressed, and every idea can be explored. It's time for Texas A&M, and for all of us, to remember that.
It seems Wendler is trying to “protect” WTAMU students from “harm” the same way than the countless examples that have occurred over the past decade or so, largely from the “left” on campuses. Why can’t the students, most, if not all are adults decide for themselves whether to attend the drag show or not?
My first experience with “cancel culture” in academia was when right-leaning groups tried to cancel a Bill Ayers speech which was originally intended for a small group of Education graduate students. Ironically the cancellation led to an embarrassing 1A lawsuit for the University and a bit of a “Streisand Effect” for Ayers that they had to host him in a larger venue to accommodate all the extra viewers who became interested in seeing what he had to say.