Banning Hate Speech

CBC Must Provide an Equal Learning Environment for All Students In response to a rise in crimes against minorities, college and Universities in the 80’s and 90’s began to enact speech codes in order to protect and provide equality for all their students. Some people labeled these actions as a response to political correctness, however hate speech was real, and college administrators had a responsibility to their students. Since then, the debate over hate speech has grown not just on college campuses but throughout the United States, with the greatest concern coming from those who fear that the First Amendment is being sacrificed in the name of diversity and equality. With 60% of the 355 colleges and universities banning hate speech on campus,
and 11% in the process this debate is not going away. Upon closer examination the history of hate speech will show that violent actions often accompany the hate filled rhetoric. CBC should examine the Claremont Mckenna College speech code as a viable resource. With the increase in diversity on college campuses, CBC must support its own mission statement by enacting codes that would ban hate speech on campus, that cause harm not offense, to any of their students whether these attacks come verbally or through a media outlet. Freedom of speech is actually a fairly new concept in America.
Prior to the 1930’s speech was not as protected as it is today (Bell, 968). This is a freedom that many take for granted or spend very little time thinking about. While it would be easy to say that banning hate speech would clearly take away the freedom of speech, the truth is banning hate speech would actually provide opportunities for more people to enjoy free speech. According to Bell’s article in the Indiana Law Journal, minorities who are subjected to hate speech are more likely to avoid those situations whether it involves their place of work, home or public environment (966). They are not engaging in discussion like opponents of banning hate speech suggest, there is a clear understanding that this situation is not safe and must be avoided. While some would contend that hate speech is simply, spoken words that some find offensive, Stephen Newman, in Liberty, Community and Censorship, describes hate speech as words that heighten prejudice, and intimidate specific people (375). Even the Supreme Court does not always agree on the defining lines of hate speech. Erik Bleich in his article the Rise of Hate Speech lists several court cases that have helped to define the law in regards to hate speech. These cases include Chaplinsky V. New Hampshire, which introduced the term “fighting words”, Biauharnais V. Illinois, this case involved printed materials, and the case quoted in every article RAV v. City of
St. Paul, in which the City of ST. Paul tried to prosecute the cross burning as hate speech and the Supreme Court said no. All these cases involved hate speech, which was followed by action, however the results were not all the same. These are a few of the cases that most authors refer to when they look at the defining terms regarding hate speech. A cross burning, printed materials accusing an entire minority group of being criminal in nature and words that entice fighting all can be heard just by turning on the news or listening to students explain their college experience. Once the history and definition of hate speech has been examined it is crucial that steps are taken to bring forth change. Many college and Universities have begun this change already.
As was previously stated in this paper over 60% have already enacted speech codes in spite of the controversy. Some concerns over these speech codes arise when we look at the very reason as to why they are necessary. Over and over again hate speech, not just offense, is followed by violent action. Sometimes the very words that are spoken can cause the recipient to recoil as if they have been physically harmed. This is the kind of hate speech that must be stopped. Opponents of hate speech may have valid concerns over speech codes, however their concerns are much easier to address then the violent speech and actions that minorities face on campus daily. Let’s examine some of the concerns raised by author Greg Lukianoff in Unlearning Liberty, throughout his book he brings up concerns such as, who is deciding what is considered hate speech, are we creating an environment of students to afraid to speak and what about due process? All of these concerns are valid and while there have been issues with administrators forwarding their own agenda and a lack of education regarding students’ rights, the point that probably contains the most weight would be the lack of due process. In his book he lists several cases where students were punished or even expelled without the opportunity to defend themselves. While the examples in his book are terrible these cases should motivate administrators to examine their
intentions and make sure they are formulating codes that are accomplishing their intended goals. One example comes from the article Policing Prejudice on Campus, concerning the University of Wisconsin. When they decided to change their original conduct code they asked went through multiple steps to ensure that they were not punishing students or administrators engaged in difficult conversations but that those who chose to engage in speech that resulted in violence against another person based on their race, religion or sexual orientation that there would be appropriate consequences. This was not intended to stifle conversation but to ensure that, even if offensive, it was just discussion that was taken place. Waldron refers several time in his book to the idea of “respect and dignity” that should be afforded to everyone without fear and intimidation. With the increase of cultural, racial and religious diversity on college campuses brought an escalation in harassment and violence as many different ideas and strong beliefs began to mingle. Had these incidents remained debates or simple words of offense perhaps speech codes would not have been necessary, sadly this was not the case and 20 years later there is still a struggle to make the right decisions? As part of the higher learning community CBC has a responsibility to the diverse population of its own campus. Looking at the history, the pros and cons of speech codes and the examples of different Universities, CBC has an opportunity to fulfill its mission statement by enacting similar codes that would ensure a safe learning environment for all their students. An example of a media policy CBC could follow is outlined by Greg Lukianoff, the Claremont Mckenna College policy, this bans the use of their system by students or staff to engage in the harassment of others based on their, “race, religion, disability…”, basically CBC property has to be used with respect to all students. Robert Buckman, in the pros and cons of speech codes, quotes Gary Hauk, a secretary to the president of Emory, “A university campus cannot be allowed to become “a naked public square… in which the advantage goes to the loudest shouter, the biggest mob, the most persistent expression of hatred,” this is an excellent picture of what can happen if CBC chooses to do nothing (1).