Burn in hell you stupid faggot! Imagine someone shouting this at you. This is what is happening around campuses everywhere to people. This is Hate Speech. Hate Speech is any speech intended to hurt or discriminate against another person because of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, national or ethnic origin, etc. Hate Speech is a very complicated matter. Some people believe speech codes violate the First Amendment, while others believe some speech is undeserving of the First Amendment. Campus guidelines and speech codes are also complicated matters, which will be discussed.
A lot of people do not agree with campus guidelines or speech codes because they violate the First Amendment. Many people believe that if we are able to put regulations on speech on campus, then what is going to stop us from imposing those regulations elsewhere. People do not want to lose their rights of free speech. Author Henry Louis Gates Jr. speaks of this. He says, There is also a practical reason to worry about the impoverishment for the national discourse on free speech. If we keep losing the arguments, then we may slowly lose the liberties that they were meant to defend.(183)
Gates is stating what could happen if we were to regulate and make restrictions. Retired Professor Franklyn S. Haiman is an avid supporter of the First. He states, First and foremost, suppressing the overt verbal or symbolic expression of group hatred does not make the attitudes that give rise to such expression go away. Most probably, the people who hold such attitudes will move underground, where their hatred will fester and possibly erupt in a more violent form at a later time. Since an unseen enemy is more dangerous and more difficult to defend against than one that is visible, it seems foolish to drive such bigots into hiding.(195) How true is this statement? Is Haiman right about the hatred not going away, but only getting worse?
Haiman states another point when he says, Legal limitations on hate speech are not only likely to be counterproductive, they are simply not the most effective way to deal with the problem.(195) This is a subject of much debate. Do we want people to be able to discriminate and harass? Or do we want to lose our rights? There is a very thin line involved here. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis made a powerful statement with his famous opinion written in 1927, capturing the essence of the First Amendments answer to hate speech when he said: If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution.(195)
But if we do not have any guidelines people are still going to get hurt. Because of guidelines there have been many sad and disturbing incidents dealing with hate. At The University of Michigan: Campus radio station broadcasts a call from a student who joked: Who are the most famous black women in history? Aunt Jemima and Mother Fucker (157) It is actions like these that are causing a stir for guidelines. Sure, people want to keep their rights, but how far can people go? Whats over the top? Where can we draw the line? There are people who are doing their best to protect against the hate without violating the First Amendment.
Stating guidelines very carefully and specifically worded. Charles R. Lawrence III was in favor of a colleagues speech regulations draft but has some important points of his own. (157) Lawrence says, Face-to-Face insults, like fighting words, are undeserving of the First Amendment protection for two reasons. The first reason is the immediacy of the injurious impact of racial insults. The experience of being called nigger, spic, Jap, or kike, is like receiving a slap in the face. The injury is instantaneous. There is neither an opportunity for responsive speech. (159)
Who can really determine what is undeserving of the First Amendment? Who is the one to interpret all this? The University of Idaho has a very undefined rule against any such instances. The University of Idahos article III Physical abuse, Hazing, or Harassment states: 1. Living together in a university community requires respect for the rights of fellow members of that community to pursue their academic goals and to participate in lawful campus or Ul activities. 2.
Harassment, Hazing. detention, threats, intimidation, coercion, physical abuse, or similar action, undertaken knowingly, are violations of this code. (p.3) This code is very vague and leaves every door open. Jack Morris, Executive Dean of Business and Economics doesnt agree with it. He says, The university doesnt want to have to deal with any big altercations probably. It should be more refined than what it is. Jack believes that article III of the code of conduct doesnt let us know enough.
Students should know what they are able to do. He also says, He wont worry too much about it. If they change it great, if not, life goes on. There have been very good points stated for both sides, so who is right? You can never please everyone and until you can, there will always be this debate. Is there a way you can dissect the First Amendment and clarify what belongs under it? Was it meant for that reason? But at the same time, maybe there is a way around it, a way to organize a set of campus guidelines that are politically correct. What we don know is that this debate will be around for a long time. What the outcome is, we will just have to wait and see.
