Drawing on speech act theory from philosophy of language, we argue that a university leader’s silence in these situations whether literal or in the form of ineffective counterspeech is not a neutral response. Such silence accommodates injustice. However; a leader who engages in counterspeech can challenge the hate speech’s legitimacy and prevent it from resetting the terms of debate in such a way that the discrimination in the hate speech becomes normalized, even if this counterspeech cannot undo the harm entirely. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4180723 Share this: Click to print (Opens in new window) Print Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email Like this:Like Loading... Post navigation Prevention of hate speech crimes: digital versus real-life environment (University of Latvia) Social media platforms must regulate misinformation and hate speech (The Saturday Standard, Kenya)