Ohio University is a public institution bound by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That means speakers like Myron Gaines are legally allowed to appear on campus. As the Student Press Law Center affirms, public universities cannot restrict speech based solely on its offensiveness or viewpoint.
But legality is not the same as legitimacy.
A man who promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories, claims Jewish people control the world — as evident by the shirt reading “The Great Noticing” worn by one of Gaines’ lackeys — and performs a Nazi salute on a college campus is not engaging in meaningful dialogue. That is not a thoughtful debate, it is hate made into spectacle.
This reality is more dangerous in the wake of the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, which led to the closure of diversity, equity and inclusion spaces on campus. Those centers once provided students, particularly those from marginalized communities, with places to process experiences and find support. Without them, students have fewer resources to navigate moments like this.
In a Q&A with The Post, Ohio University President Lori Stewart Gonzalez said when university leaders take positions, it can create a “chilling effect” that discourages students from speaking freely. She cited The University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report which argues universities should remain neutral on social and political issues. But, there is a crucial stipulation Gonzalez has ignored.
“"From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry,” the report reads. “In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values."
The crisis is happening now and Gonzalez’s argument assumes neutrality protects open dialogue; but even if that premise is accepted, explicit hate creates its own chilling effect.
The Nazi salute is inseparable from a history of genocide, violence and systemic dehumanization. For Jewish students, it evokes the Holocaust. For minority students, it signals an ideology tied to exclusion and harm. When that symbolism appears openly on campus, it does not expand dialogue, it narrows it.
Students who feel targeted are less likely to speak or engage, not because leadership has taken a stance, but because the environment signals their safety and dignity are up for debate.
If the goal is to prevent a chilling effect, ignoring or downplaying explicit hate does not achieve that goal. It risks creating a campus climate where only some voices feel comfortable being heard. That silence reinforces who gets to be heard and who does not, and shapes who gets to speak and who does not.
It is also worth acknowledging that the U.S. stands largely alone in how it treats this kind of expression. In countries like Germany and Austria, the Nazi salute is illegal. In other European countries, Nazi messaging and Holocaust denial is criminalized.
“In the United States, the First Amendment protects the freedoms of speech, press and association; such guarantees prohibit suppression of the Nazi message,” according to The World Holocaust Remembrance Center. “As a result, neo-Nazi parties are completely legal…and their anti-Semitic and racist messages are protected by the Constitution. The only limitation on such speech, according to the Supreme Court, are calls for immediate violence.”
Other countries still maintain democratic systems and protections for free expression. The difference is a clearer legal line when speech becomes inseparable from historical violence and targeted hate.
In the U.S., that line is far looser. The First Amendment protects even deeply offensive expression unless it directly incites imminent violence. That protection is fundamental. It also places responsibility on communities to respond when speech crosses into open bigotry.
OU is not just any public space. It is a community built on stated values: access, community-based learning and preparing students to serve and improve the world. Central to those commitments is respect across differences and empathy for others.
Gaines’ rhetoric stands in direct opposition to those principles.
This was not a case of a controversial speaker encouraging critical thought. Claims about Jewish control, degrading women and dehumanizing entire groups do not invite discussion. They normalize division. Paired with a Nazi salute, the message is clear.
There is a difference between protecting speech and passively accepting behavior that undermines a university community. The First Amendment guarantees Gaines the right to speak. It does not obligate this campus or administration to remain silent.
OU should be a place where ideas are challenged, not where people are diminished. A campus that claims to value empathy and respect cannot treat moments like this as neutral.
The OU administration’s silence in the face of explicit hate is not neutrality. It is complicity.
The Post editorials are independent of the publication's news coverage. Have thoughts? The Post can be reached via editor@thepostathens.com.
