Free Speech, Privilege, and the Battle for Honest Debate in America

Introduction: A Defining Exchange

In a congressional hearing room, the air is thick with anticipation. The topic—free speech, hate speech, and the question of privilege—has become one of the most contentious battlegrounds in American society. On one side sits Rep. Stacy Plaskett, a poised and incisive questioner. On the other, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, known for his rapid-fire logic and unwavering confidence.

What follows is more than a clash of personalities or politics. It is a microcosm of the larger struggle over who gets to speak, whose experiences matter, and how America defines justice and equality in the 21st century.

The Question of Privilege

Rep. Plaskett’s opening is measured but pointed. She references conversations with scholars and activists, drawing on the work of Jewish-American writer Rachel Lazer and Dr. Greg Parks of Wake Forest University, both of whom have explored issues of race, privilege, and critical race theory.

“My understanding,” Plaskett says, “is that white privilege is not telling individuals they cannot speak, but it is a term for societal privilege that individuals have as a benefit of their white skin. I don’t think that white privilege actually went into that sphere. My understanding is it’s just… white privilege makes people uncomfortable to talk about the societal privilege that they have.”

She pauses, then continues: “I think it’s demonstrable evidence through society’s demographics that being white has societal privileges that being black does not.”

It’s a view that has become mainstream in many academic and activist circles. The idea is simple: that American society, from its founding, has granted advantages—sometimes invisible, sometimes explicit—to those with white skin, and that these advantages persist today in everything from policing to education to economic opportunity.

But Shapiro is not convinced by the framing.

Shapiro’s Response: The Line Between Justice and Ideology

Shapiro leans forward, his tone calm but firm. “What I say on campuses all the time is if you want to cite instances of racism that we can all find and fight together, that’s something that I’m more than willing to stand next to you and fight, because that’s obviously stuff that we should fight together.”

He draws a distinction between fighting real, tangible acts of racism and accepting the broad, abstract concept of white privilege as an “ether” that automatically diminishes the value of some people’s perspectives.

“When you just say that there is a white privilege out there in the ether and that by dint of birth your skin color generates for you an advantage, what you’re really saying to people is that your view is less valuable because you have not experienced what I’ve experienced,” Shapiro argues. “And that is an identity argument. That’s a character argument. That’s not a rational political argument that can actually be taken on in any way. It’s more of a cudgel and a club than it is an attempt to open a discussion.”

This, for Shapiro, is the real danger: that the language of privilege is not being used to address injustice, but to silence dissent, delegitimize certain voices, and reduce complex individuals to the color of their skin.

Hate Speech, Free Speech, and the Boundaries of Debate

Plaskett is not finished. She pivots to a hypothetical scenario, referencing a real incident: “For Miss Dumpston, the tying the noose around the campus and writing messages that target African-American young students. Would you consider that hate speech, and then would you stand next to her and fight for her?”

The question is sharp. It’s one thing to defend the principle of free speech in the abstract; it’s another to defend someone targeted by racist threats and harassment.

Shapiro’s answer is unequivocal: “This is the first I’m hearing about it, honestly, but… I’m more than happy to stand alongside her and fight whatever group was responsible for this. Not only more than happy—I mean, you’re talking about the alt-right. Again, I was the number one target of anti-Semitic harassment from the alt-right last year. So I am more than happy to do all that.”

He draws another crucial distinction: “I think there’s one more distinction that has to be made when we talk about cases like Taylor’s. They’re horrific. And the administration is siding with Taylor. The administration is doing the right thing by Taylor or trying to do the right thing by Taylor, as they should be. And I think that we need to make a distinction between cases where the administration is actively participating in the suppression of speech and cases in which the administration is trying to do the right thing… to punish people for application of crime.”

The message is clear: Real acts of racism and hate must be confronted—forcefully, and together. But universities and governments must not cross the line into suppressing speech or policing thought.

The Core of the Disagreement

At its heart, this exchange is about more than policy. It is about the very terms of debate in American life.

For Plaskett and many on the left, acknowledging white privilege is a necessary step toward justice. It is not about silencing anyone, but about recognizing the realities of history and the present. For Shapiro and many on the right, the language of privilege has become a tool to delegitimize dissent and enforce ideological conformity.

Shapiro’s argument is not that racism does not exist, nor that white Americans have never benefited from privilege. Instead, he is wary of the way the concept is wielded—as a “cudgel” rather than an invitation to honest conversation.

“When someone tells you your perspective is worth less because of your race,” he says, “they’re not making a political argument. They’re making a personal attack.”

The Broader Landscape: Campuses, Media, and the New Orthodoxy

The battle over speech and privilege is not confined to Congress. It plays out daily on college campuses, in newsrooms, and across social media.

On campuses, the language of privilege, intersectionality, and social justice has become orthodoxy in many departments. Students are taught to “check their privilege” and to view history, literature, and even science through the lens of power and identity.

Critics, including Shapiro, argue that this new orthodoxy does not foster genuine debate. Instead, it replaces one kind of dogma with another—one that prioritizes lived experience over empirical evidence, and group identity over individual merit.

“The academics who promote this aren’t bringing unity,” Shapiro warns. “They’re deepening division because their careers and influence depend on it.”

Supporters counter that these frameworks are essential for understanding and dismantling the legacy of racism and exclusion that has shaped American institutions.

The Danger of Silence

For Shapiro, the greatest danger is not that people will be offended or uncomfortable. It is that the boundaries of acceptable speech will be drawn ever tighter, until only certain voices are allowed in the public square.

“You can accept a worldview that tells you who can speak and what you can say based on your identity,” he says, “or you can stand for the principles that made this country strong: individual liberty, free speech, and equality under the law.”

It is a stark choice, and one that echoes far beyond the walls of Congress.

The Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Shapiro invokes the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., arguing that the new focus on identity and privilege “flips [his] dream on its head.” Instead of judging people by the content of their character, he says, the new orthodoxy prioritizes the color of their skin.

For Shapiro and his supporters, this is not progress—it is regression. It is a return to a world where identity trumps individuality, and where justice is measured not by fairness, but by group grievance.

For many on the left, however, King’s dream cannot be realized without first acknowledging and addressing the structural inequalities that persist. To ignore privilege, they argue, is to perpetuate injustice.

The Role of Universities

Nowhere is this debate more intense than on America’s college campuses. Universities have always been crucibles of new ideas, but in recent years, they have also become battlegrounds for the soul of free speech.

Conservative speakers are shouted down or disinvited. “Safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” are invoked to protect students from ideas deemed harmful or offensive. Administrators walk a tightrope between fostering open inquiry and maintaining order.

For critics like Shapiro, this is evidence that universities are becoming “strongholds of social justice ideology, pushing conservative voices to the margins and replacing genuine debate with indoctrination.”

Supporters argue that these measures are necessary to create inclusive environments for students who have long been marginalized.

When Speech Becomes Action

The distinction between speech and action is central to this debate. When does speech cross the line into hate? When does protest become suppression?

Shapiro is clear: “We need to make a distinction between cases where the administration is actively participating in the suppression of speech and cases in which the administration is trying to do the right thing… to punish people for application of crime.”

In other words, universities (and society at large) must protect against real acts of violence and harassment, but must not become censors of thought or expression.

The Personal Stakes

For Shapiro, this is not just theory. He points to his own experience as the “number one target of anti-Semitic harassment from the alt-right.” Hate, he argues, is wrong no matter where it comes from.

This is a crucial point: The fight against hate must be principled and consistent. It cannot be wielded selectively, or only against one’s political opponents.

The Future of Honest Debate

At the end of the exchange, the stakes are clear. The future of honest debate in America depends not just on laws or policies, but on a shared commitment to principles: free speech, individual liberty, and equality under the law.

This does not mean ignoring history or pretending that privilege does not exist. It means refusing to let identity become a weapon, and insisting that every voice—regardless of race, gender, or background—has the right to be heard.

It means recognizing that justice is not served by silencing dissent, but by confronting injustice wherever it is found.

Conclusion: The Choice Ahead

In the congressional hearing room, as in the larger society, the choice is stark.

We can accept a world where speech is policed and debate is narrowed to fit the contours of ideology. Or we can insist on a world where ideas are tested in the crucible of open discussion, where disagreement is not a crime, and where the content of one’s character matters more than the color of one’s skin.

The future of American democracy depends on which path we choose.

In the words of Ben Shapiro: “In this moment, you decide whether to stay silent or speak truth in the face of pressure. The future of open debate depends on it.”