Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Campus Hate Speech- Initial Arguments

Why is hate speech harmful? What legal and moral reasons lend support to campus speech codes? Legally, every U.S. citizen is entitled to equal opportunity in education and employment regardless of race, sex, religion, or ethnic background. Yet also, every U.S. citizen is guaranteed freedom of expression under the First Amendment. What happens when an expression is harassing and seems to deny equal individual opportunity?
The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and the University of Wisconsin system were highly influential in the development of hate speech codes on campus. A series of events led them to develop a policy, which identified three tiers of speech. The tiers included student newspapers, public parts of the university, and educational and academic centers. The policy stated that students were subject to discipline for any behavior that victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, or Vietnam-era veteran status. It also stated that discipline would be taken for sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, etc. which victimizes an individual on the basis of sex.
The codes outlined above were met with no opposition to campuses. It should be noted, however, that the interest administrators had in the development of the policies was that they were to protect themselves from lawsuits. Experts have noted the problems inherent in designing policies in response to public events- rushed policies are typically bad.
To justify having a speech code, universities needed to show that the speech caused serious harm and needed to be addressed. They developed the deterrence argument, which states that campus hate speech causes harm and are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal rights guarantee. Such violations should be deterred, and are done so by a speech code.
Hate speech can cause emotional distress, can result in disorders and in some cases even suicide. It is also very noteworthy to mention that the United States is virtually the only country which thinks that hate speech should be legal. One suggestion is looking at hate speech itself, rather than looking at the consequences of hate speech. Looking at hate speech through the philosophical lens of Kant, it fails both of his tests. In the end both consequentialist and nonconsequentialist arguments are strong and prove the immorality of campus hate speech.
Another argument against hate speech is that often bigotry escalates beyond speech, and is often acted out- sometimes in the form of destroying property, physical assaults, and even murder. Critics of speech codes agree with condemning hate speech, but believe codes risk opening doors to other types of censorship.
The first amendment argument for speech codes include using the example of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which upheld a state ban on words that inflict injury by their very utterance. The court has also noted that only fighting words directed at an individual can be regulated, leading to codes that target speech against individuals rather than a group. The group libel model targets this, by stating that the First Amendment does not protect group libel, and because some hate speech constitutes group libel, it should be prevented. Finally, social science states that antiracism rules will deter speech promoting racial hatred. In this way, speech codes can be considered effective in that they deter racist acts that would occur in the absence of campus speech codes.

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html
The ALCU website. Includes an interesting Q and A section that addresses questions such as: why protect racist speech? Don't speech codes protect minority groups?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes
This page provides an overview on protecting speech on campuses. Cites some interesting court cases that are worth a read.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163705,00.html
Story that includes involvement by FIRE. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is a group that exists "to defend and sustain individual rights at America's increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtuCk6BDZSU

Video of a hateful speech against Israel at a University of California campus. What are your thoughts on this speech? Should their right to express themselves be protected?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvEzs6AXXTo
A different type of speech on campus- evangelistic. Is this man's speech hate speech? Should he be allowed on college campuses?

No comments: