When an individual engages in public speaking before a captive audience, that individual is engaging in the presentation of ideas. And when audience members hear and consider ideas being put forth, they often respond in various fashions. On one side of the spectrum, a response might entail the maintaining of a quiet and attentive disposition. On the other hand, a response which is quite different, is the combative expression of a point of contention intended to disrupt.

One might argue that when appropriate, these disruptive expressions of contention are necessary. They serve to provide a counter-balance against hateful and insensitive remarks. However, there is a problem with this type of behavior that I must address.

First, I would like to provide a quote: “Today, more than ever, the role of the heckler could play a vital role in bringing us back to reality. People need to be called out when they are in the wrong, and if no one else is going to step up, perhaps it is up to me to be a leader.”

That is a quote from myself. I wrote that previously on my blog when I decided to stand up for my beliefs. But since that point, I have felt a considerable amount of hesitancy in becoming fully engaged with this type of activism for the following reason: These types of responses necessitate disorder and teeter upon impolite behavior. Not to mention, they are also largely ineffective, as they often result in being drowned out by the individual on the stage, as they are in a position of situational advantage with regard to vocal amplification.

While it may be the case that instantaneous expressions of dissatisfaction from the position of an audience member are necessary at times to ensure that a suitable counter-balance is met, I cannot help but feel that we can do better. I cannot help but feel that in these instances, we do not have to sacrifice our civility.

Hence, I would like to propose an alternative: a new heckling—that of sophistication. It is a methodological form of activism that I have authored and I shall refer to it as “reverse” heckling. It is “reverse” in the following sense: Rather than speak out of turn from the audience to voice objection toward what has been said by an individual on the stage, one must wait for or create an opportunity to voice objection from the stage itself, and direct it toward the audience. In some instances, an individual who has made a statement that is to be objected to will have become part of that audience.

Perhaps the most practical application of this method is at an event which features an open microphone, thereby explicitly allowing anyone in attendance the opportunity to proceed onto the stage at a given time. For example, one might be in attendance at such an event, hear an inherently offensive remark, carefully form their objection, proceed onto the stage at a later point in the event, and articulate their objection in the most powerful way that not only provides the necessary counter-balance, but captures the hearts and minds of all those in attendance and makes a strong case for justice. What has been done here is that heckling activism has been made more civil and more effective. In a way, it has been reversed.

This method also has the potential to be applied at speaking events which do not explicitly allow its attendees the opportunity to take the stage and let their voice be heard. Such potential relies on the collective understanding of what I would consider to be an axiomatic principle of social engagement, and that is the following: At any gathering, as fellow human beings, we must ultimately give precedence toward equality and justice. What this means is that when a speaker makes a statement that is inherently offensive, there should always be an implicit allowance for an individual to express the necessary objection. Attendees who shared this objection would come together, choose a representative, and lobby the host of the event to allow their voice to be heard. If this were to result in a denial of opportunity, it would be a clear illustration of the lack of understanding on the part of the host as it pertains to this core principle.

Regarding how one might determine whether or not a statement qualifies as offensive in an inherent sense, I will now briefly summarize the proper way this is to be carried out. The following is a quote from my myself, which conveys the essential methodology: “The spectrum of this ‘inherency’ is defined by the collective amount of positive and negative associations that apply to various ideas. Something is inherently offensive or triggering if it can be said that for most people it carries more negative associations than positive associations.” In addition to that, "There is a degree to which something has the potential to likely cause offense. The more potential there is, the more negative associations there are, and the more inherently offending something can be deemed.” Due to time constraints, I will stop there with regard to that point. For further clarification, I refer you to my previous writing on the topic.

One other, important point regarding the application of reverse heckling activism, is that it is by no means limited to assuming the form of a response to something in particular that someone else has said. It is only in the sense of what has traditionally been considered heckling. Since this method entails an individual with a relevant grievance or objection taking the stage itself to address it, the opportunity is presented for such time to be utilized to address broad topics, such as over-arching societal narratives and their consequences—ideally when there is a clear relation to the event proceedings. There are many issues which play a significant part in shaping the modern-day cultural milieu. It is important that we address them all, and seek opportunities to present the points of contention we hold. Let us not hesitate to “heckle” the ideas and practices that are utilized in attempts of oppression.

In keeping with the theme of public speaking, an example of a topic one might look to address in an attempt to provide that necessary counter-balance is one that I have touched on, myself. And that is the covert attack of insults that pervades and to a large extent makes up what the supposed field of stand up comedy has become. You certainly don’t have to look very far. Listen to most popular, self-proclaimed comedians, and you’re likely to find individuals participating in the spread of discrimination and insensitivity, cloaked under the false premises of what their behavior is purported to be about. It is something I will continue to denounce, and I encourage others to do the same. One of the things that I want people to understand is that the hateful things you say can have devastating consequences; whether or not you intend for that is largely irrelevant.

Finally, as we move forward and consider all the issues of our time, I would like to take a moment to emphasize the importance of specialization. When we look around, and see all of the things going on in the world, it can be overwhelming. Sometimes, it becomes easy to fall into the trap of not believing that you can make a difference. The way to overcome that is to enhance your view to a finer particularity—in other words: to choose an area of focus. It is important for us all to choose an area upon which we might feel an overwhelming desire to devote a great deal of our individual efforts. If we work together in this way, we can address all things.

And let us express our discontent in a civil and effective manner. I believe that reverse heckling activism is a way that we can do just that. Its only real limitation is the lack of immediacy in the response. My recommendation would be to assess each situation accordingly and choose the course of action you feel will have the greatest impact. I would encourage everyone to consider the utilization of the method I have presented here today to serve the common good.

So, when we leave this lecture hall, let us leave inspired. We must never forget that the future is in our hands. I will now provide one last quote from myself: “I don’t want to be just a pawn—a keeper of the status quo. Rather, I want to be a fierce activist—intrepid in my advocacy. The power structures that allow callous indifference to persist must be shaken. Those who wish to derive sick pleasure out of offending others must be called out. And in this quest, I will not be silenced.” Spread the word. Thank you.