They did not shudder at the rhetoric voiced by the young woman, an SLU alumna, standing at the podium nor allow their resolve to weaken by the applause and hooting from the auditorium's balcony. The woman had succeeded in getting a sustained reaction and validation from the rows of occupants above, primarily from outside the SLU community.

 The students' silence did not confirm the startling absence of empathy. Rather it served as a basis for their subversive action. Their protest would be a stand against an event they felt defied the University's mission and values.   

The guest speaker briskly marched to the microphone, prepared to break the silence, or so it seemed.

A few months earlier, my executive team and I began the academic year with conversations regarding the complexities of the relationships between free intellectual inquiry, civility and respect, conditions of hate speech, and our institution's Catholic, Jesuit missions. I circulated a video promoting civil, respectful discourse using the framework of Catholic intellectual traditions, foundations of the academy, and our Jesuit values. I assumed dialogue among groups of varying beliefs was a given. Upon reflecting, I realize I erred in that assumption.

Word of Lt. Col. Allen West's September 29 appearance at SLU had bubbled up through social media on campus and across the country. Sponsored speakers are commonplace and serve to enhance learning and exposure to differing ideologies. This time, some 50 days remained in the most polarizing presidential campaign since 1972.

The SLU College Republicans and the Young America's Foundation (YAF), sponsors of the event, had engaged in a public disagreement with an SLU staff member. The staff who approve campus event posters directed the words "radical Islam" be removed from a promotional poster because it did not match the event title and description on the submission form submitted several weeks earlier by the sponsoring student group.

"SLU bans words 'radical Islam' from Allen West lecture flyers," announced the YAF blog on Wednesday, September 21. The story circulated quickly among conservative blogs and news websites. "YAF activists will not back down in the face of challenges from politically correct campus bureaucrats," the blog's author stated.

The next day, a conservative talk radio host interviewed West. Among the topics covered was the report from YAF, which was news to West.

"How do you even reply to that?" asked the host. "It is so off the map and so ignorant and ridiculous. And these are our, quote, institutions of higher learning?"

"Well, it's the safe space mentality," West replied. "That we are going to regulate your free speech because there is speech we don't approve of and we don't want to hear. For me going to speak on a college campus where it should be about enlightening minds, to have someone try to restrict the speech that we will be talking about, it's unconscionable to me."

At that moment, the issue pivoted from the impermissibility of the words "radical Islam" on a poster promoting West's lecture to the presumed prohibition of their utterance during his in-person remarks. University administration, and more importantly, our Muslim students became targets of the forthcoming outrage.

 At that moment, the issue pivoted from the impermissibility of the words "radical Islam" on a poster promoting West's lecture to the presumed prohibition of their utterance during his in-person remarks. University administration, and more importantly, our Muslim students became targets of the forthcoming outrage.   

"Folks, I've just been CENSORED," headlined West's blog post that evening.

"It appears there are those who define free speech as the speech they deem acceptable," West stated. "If you attempt to speak on issues to which the liberal progressive socialist left does not consent, you should be censored. Or at a minimum, the little cupcakes ask for a 'safe space' where they don't have to hear opposing views — and here we were under the impression that institutions of higher learning were supposed to be places to encourage the free exchange of ideas."

Stoking the fire, West exclaimed, "…[I]f this is just a case of ill-conceived political correctness, we'll rectify that. But, if this is a case of the influence of stealth jihad radical Islamic campus organizations such as the Muslim Student Association, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, then you will be exposed. And I recommend to the President of St. Louis University, you do not want it known that a radical Islamic organization is dictating speakers on your campus — that is not the type of PR you really want."

Of course, the Muslim Student's Association (MSA) at SLU is not a radical Islamic organization. But in a time of extraordinary media illiteracy, when too many Americans turn to "news" sites to affirm their far-right or far-left political views, such a claim becomes fact.

Facebook and the Twitterverse erupted with wrath against SLU and our Muslim students. Many of the vitriolic claims were xenophobic, racist, anti-intellectual, and sophomoric. Some posted the words "radical Islam" repeatedly on the University's Facebook page. Nearly all who excoriated us had no affiliation with the University.

Inside our community, fear and anxiety loomed, and anger of a different kind brewed, particularly among our Muslim students, most of whom are members of MSA. Their emotional distress from being falsely and shamelessly profiled by West and his followers was palpable.

 Inside our community, fear and anxiety loomed, and anger of a different kind brewed, particularly among our Muslim students.   

Many Muslim students said they no longer felt safe. They worried that someone from outside SLU would visit our midtown, St. Louis, campus and physically harm them. They passionately shared their anguish that allowing West on campus would be effectively condoning his marginalizing rhetoric and creating a space for it to thrive.

SLU staff worked with our conservative students who felt they were being labeled reactionaries and racists — and were being marginalized on campus. They also spent countless hours speaking with aggrieved social justice advocates and counseling numerous Muslim students. Their preexisting degrees of fear and apprehension were elevated. This prompted a number of staff to privately advise that we cancel West's address.

The pleas to ban West were ardent. Leaders of multicultural student groups, undergraduate and graduate advocates for social justice, and some faculty conveyed their objection to West's hate speech and campus appearance. They repeatedly reminded us that had an SLU student voiced what West had claimed, there would be a bias incident investigation and student conduct charge — and it would likely be sustained. Initially some staff members were inclined to support the event's cancellation, others proposed we move West to an off-campus venue, and several recommended the program go on as planned.

I knew the SLU community expected I would come to a decision after listening to a diverse range of opinions. An approach rooted in respectful and dignified conversations had become a hallmark of my presidency. In cultivating a culture of inclusion and collaboration, disruptive occasions — when our values and mission are tested — are vital to this growth.

Monday morning, the president of our Student Government Association denounced West's baseless attack on our Muslim students. A short time later, YAF posted its counterpoint, again fueling conservative denouncements of SLU on social media.

Still, this backlash did not shake our students off course. That day, one email from a MSA member laid the foundation for how this situation might play out.

 As we considered the bigger picture, the polarized climate in America, and the need for authentic leadership, we embraced that it is more effective to trust our students and empower them to do the right thing than to shield them, which might inhibit their exposure to growth experiences.   

"In a time of extreme political turmoil surrounding American Muslims, it is very easy for us to believe that our citizenship and our rights are not equal in the eyes of Non-Muslim Americans, and having members like Allen West speak increases our fears of a worsening and less safe environment for peaceful Muslims in our community.

"I am not suggesting that you prohibit Allen West from speaking at SLU, as I believe in the basic right for everyone to speak their mind, however I request that you personally send out a statement in support of the Muslim Student Association and rejecting Allen West's claim that MSA is a 'radical jihadi group affiliated with the Muslim brotherhood.' This will help those Muslims who feel scrutinized by today's political environment get a sense of relief that the University truly stands for justice and equality for all races, religions and creeds."

This student's mature, merciful, and reasoned response struck a chord. Unlike the students who would protest at the West event, my continued silence exhibited complicity. I had to make a clear statement and take a stance. Others who reached out to me echoed his observations, and it aligned with the recommendations from my Vice President for Student Development and my Chief Diversity Officer.

As we considered the bigger picture, the polarized climate in America, and the need for authentic leadership, we embraced that it is more effective to trust our students and empower them to do the right thing than to shield them, which might inhibit their exposure to growth experiences.

Throughout the day Tuesday, my staff rescheduled meetings to open blocks of time to hear from our community members — by email, phone, and in person. Members of my executive staff and I met with social justice advocates, with leaders from MSA, SGA, the Rainbow Alliance, and the Black Student Alliance, and with members of the SLU College Republicans. As they spoke candidly, we listened intently, took notes, and asked questions. "Help me understand" introduced those questions I felt were most critical to our discussion.

We asked Muslim students about their experience on campus, and how the election climate was affecting them. We pressed parties for their thoughts on hate speech, free expression, and speech that can trigger violence. We pressed leaders of the College Republicans on why they were quick to engender a public fight rather than appeal the poster decision to a higher authority. We asked everyone to empathize with those of differing opinions.

These necessary conversations, which seek common ground, are difficult. Active, empathetic listening takes immense focus and depth, especially when emotions and tensions are high. And the ego of being a university president has to be subordinated to ensure healthy discourse. A university's ability to bend without breaking is contingent upon how effective it is at establishing long-lasting relationships with students by knowing them, listening to them, and trusting them.

This is no easy feat, but the uncertainty of this approach is softened by having confidence that the university's mission, vision, and values have taken root in the community. This approach attempts to break from seeing contentious conflicts on campus as merely diametrically opposed groups vying to achieve their own agendas. Instead, it emphasizes how dialoguing can help all parties involved make generative plans that move the university forward.

The decision I would make needed to be supported by Jesuit values and our University's mission. It needed to draw from insights and lessons learned from past campus controversies, and it needed to enable opportunities for further engagement on this issue.

My staff and I started drafting and refining my statement, which would condemn West's remarks but uphold the event. It would disappoint ideologues on either end of the political spectrum. But for the vast majority of the SLU community, my decision would simply make sense. It was circulated Wednesday afternoon via email and social media.

"In recent days, many others and I have worked to hear and understand the pain our Muslim students and allies are feeling. Let me take this opportunity to remind these—and all—SLU students that I am in solidarity with you.

 As an institution of higher learning, SLU must resist the urge to suppress speech and instead expose all ideas and positions, provocative or pedestrian, to critical scrutiny.   

"Yet, as distasteful and contrary to our Gospel values as this vilification may be, I believe that we should proceed with the College Republicans' program Thursday night. As an institution of higher learning, SLU must resist the urge to suppress speech and instead expose all ideas and positions, provocative or pedestrian, to critical scrutiny. The fundamental purpose of a community of scholars and learners is to engage respectfully rather than repress. And through this critical, yet civil engagement, the truth emerges. Let us approach the remarks of any guest speaker on our campus in this same manner."

Some were quick to denounce, even mock, my decision. Some alumni took to our Facebook page to voice their utter disappointment.

YAF posted a lengthy critique online, and West offered: "This is truly insidious stuff, attacking the very core of our civilization, but we won't let it go unchecked."

That afternoon, the head of the SLU College Republicans stood before the Student Government Association. Looking to leaders of MSA, he apologized.

Settling in at the podium, speaking in an even, almost subdued voice, "It's a pleasure and honor to speak with you all," West said. "This is the first time I've ever been in St. Louis."

Then, on cue, one student in a white shirt seated just in front of the podium stood up, turned to his right and paused before passing by others still seated. To the left and right, others stood and exited the auditorium row-by-row—choreographed to move at an amiable pace.

Not a word was spoken as their silence went unbroken. Not a gesture was made except a single black fist raised—a resoundingly quiet statement of protest, in contrast to the rancor that had played out on social media over the past eight days.

From the second level, murmurs from audience members were jarringly stilled by a young woman clapping and shouting, "USA. USA. USA." No one joined. Students down on the floor stood resolutely, waiting to leave. West's supporters filled their vacant seats, muttering comments that may not have been heard but for the contrasting silence. He talked, as he intended, and took questions.

Hundreds of students, alumni, faculty, and staff went to our Facebook page to praise the University's response and the powerful silent statement made by MSA members and their supporters.

My team and I met with 15 MSA student leaders for an hour the next day. Again, they raised tough questions. Some expressed distress that we had let West speak. But, as our discussion wrapped up, they expressed their understanding, appreciation, and support for how we managed such a controversial event.

I needed to remind them that it was they who acted as true leaders. They lived our University's values, displaying great character and commitment at a time when they could have easily succumbed to hurt and fear.

Empathetic conversation had paved the way.