Opinion: Hatchet Column’s Case for Quiet Censorship

Max Schwartzman, FL - Editor-in-Chief

A recent column in the GW Hatchet argued that the administration and leadership of George Washington University should “fact-check” and monitor speakers who are invited to campus by students. The proposal, as written in the article, is framed as a call for responsibility and for maintaining civility and credibility in campus dialogue. But beneath the veneer of care for students, this amounts to a call for an indirect, institutional censorship of free thoughts and ideas on our campus.

The GW Hatchet itself claims to be an independent newspaper. It's even written on the top of their website. As an independent newspaper, should there be a need to fact-check a speaker or event on campus, the Hatchet should be the one doing it - not the school. The role of an independent press is to investigate and present the truth - without an institutional authority defining it. However, this point is not noted in the article. There is no acknowledgement or even self-promotion of the Hatchet for its ability to do this, which is not of interest to the columnist.

The article never explicitly calls on the school to ban, prohibit, or discriminate against certain ideas or beliefs, but the “evidence” used to make the point shows a clear anti-conservative, anti-contrarian bias. Prior events like the RFK Jr. GWCRs event and the upcoming Erika Kirk and Karoline Levitt TPUSA event were explicitly mentioned, both of which carry conservative and anti-establishment themes.

However, an example of a “good” and correct event, according to the article, is a 2023 speech that promotes trusting institutionalised science and warns of the dangers of not listening to scientists.

The implication of this column is clear: promoting the censorship of conservative voices at GW.

The calls for fact-checking are a rebranding of censorship. It points to events that go against the general view of most students, suggesting they need guidance and fact checking from the school to prevent falsehoods. The purpose of most speakers on campus is to share their expertise, knowledge, information, experience, and stories. Preemptive framing of future events as needing fact checking discourages students from hearing different opinions and from hosting other speakers in the future. ​

The Hatchet and its writers, as a supposedly independent newspaper, should not be in the business of outsourcing the truth to institutional authorities or calling for the censorship of opposing ideas. All GW students, all Americans, and any self-respecting journalist should stand firmly against censorship in any form.