Speech Codes Threaten The Free Exchange Of Ideas On College Campuses

In the debate over whether speech codes should be enforced or not on university campuses, the opponents conclude that university’s should not enforce a hate speech code because it impedes academic freedom. On the other side of the debate, the supporters conclude that it is a university’s responsibility to enforce hate speech code for an equal education opportunity. In this essay, I will conclude that hate speech should be regulated by a code enforced by the university because of the protection it offers. In the article titled, “Speech Codes Threaten the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses” Eugene Volokh concludes that colleges should enforce a speech code. One of his reasons is that a speech code undermines academic freedom in the
classroom. He supports the reason with examples such as: speech codes would hinder polite arguments in class and that a speech code would “weaken collegial-control mechanisms”. Volokh also reasons that fighting bad speech with good speech which he considers the “civil libertarian’s classic remedy” is effective. Volokh supports it by claiming that if a professor “condemns genuinely offensive speech” it will discourage such speech from occurring again. Another reason Volokh uses in defense is that earnest apologies would be compromised since admitting to a disagreeable act would bring embarrassment and fear to a repentant professor or student. Therefore, an informal reprimand would save an individual from being embarrassed. Volokh bases his argument on the implication that a speech code would highly inhibit academic freedom in university classrooms. Furthermore, Volokh firmly bases his argument in the belief that informal, social-control, unlike a formal speech code is the better choice. On the other side of the debate, in the article titled “Prohibiting Racist Speech on Campus” Charles Lawrence concludes that it is a university’s responsibility to enforce a speech code.
One of his reasons is for academic freedom for the minorities. Another reason of Lawrence’s for his argument is the “resurgence of racial violence…verbal and symbolic assault” resulting in an increase of hate speech harassment on university campuses. As a result, individuals who are considered a part of a minority group are victimized by speech due to their sexual orientation, race, gender or religion making them “second-class citizens”. According to Lawrence, university officials that have already created a speech code have protected only incidents of face-to-face insults. However, hate speech encompasses not only face-to-face insults, but “catcalls” and “other assaultive speech aimed at an individual or group of persons” which happens to be the exception to First Amendment protection. Another reason for his conclusion is that having a speech code enforced gives the opportunity for minorities for “safe passage in all common areas” on campus. He supports the reason claiming that a minority student should not risk becoming a target of hate speech when “he or she chooses to walk across campus”. He goes on with another reason that since “otherwise protected speech” is allowed when it occurs in the “privacy of the unwilling listener’s home”. He reasons that then certainly on a university campus
hate speech including “racist posters, fliers and graffiti” on campus should be regulated when it invades privacy (such as in common living areas). Lawrence offers up two rebuttals in his argument. He first recognizes an argument against regulation of speech which claimed that “hate mongering” should be allowed for society’s benefit. The argument goes on to say that it would be impossible to regulate speech without regulating all other forms of speech. Regulating speech would not be right “for a democratic society to suppress”. Lawrence stated in response that trying to balance a “free flow of ideas” which the democratic process is dependent on and that of trying to “further the cause of equality” is not enough to “reconcile our commitment to equality without commitment to free speech”. Lawrence believes that this argument is not viable until it is recognized that hate speech does cause harm. Lawrence’s second rebuttal addressed the idea that fighting bad speech with good speech would prevail. Lawrence opposed that argument, claiming that it is an “empty ideal”. He affirms that it is useless to wait for good to prevail; you have to fight for the protection of victims whose voice is “chilled in a climate of racial harassment”. After analyzing and evaluating the two sides in this debate, I believe that Charles Lawrence has the most compelling argument; therefore, I conclude that hate speech codes should be enforced on university campuses. I further conclude that Volokh’s argument is fallacious due to hasty conclusions. I arrived at this conclusion based on a reason I have formulated to further defend Lawrence’s argument.
I believe there should be hate speech codes because an incident of verbal/racial harassment on a college campus may lead to a hate crime. For instance, Daniel Vessal, a Jewish student at Temple University was mocked by being called a “baby killer” and a “Zionist pig” after he was courteously discussing Hamas with students that represented a group called Students for Justice in Palestine. Not only was he mocked, he was punched in the face by one of the students. After Vessal was punched he was then called a “kike”. (Temple Univ. Jewish Student Punched In Face And Called ‘Kike’ In Anti-Semitic Attack, Mael). Another reason why I support Lawrence’s argument is his reason that speech should be regulated not just in verbal form, but in the forms of fliers, posters and graffiti. I further his case that media forms should not only be controlled in common areas, but at any location on campus since there is evidence of where hateful media was discovered. For example, Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexualtiy, an anti-gay organization was passing out anti-gay propaganda at the University of Regina (Anti-Gay Hate Group Runs Into Trouble on Two Campuses). In another incident, white supremacist fliers were put on cars which happened at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and St. Norbert's College (No Penalty For Racist Flyers Targeting Colleges, George).
The fliers talked about “white pride” and how white people are “under attack by black people”. Likewise, racial slurs were written on walls, book covers and desks in the African American section of the University of North Carolina Greensboro library, in a report by The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. On the other hand, I do not support Volokh’s argument since I have found his argument guilty of hasty conclusions. Volokh claims that speech codes will undermine the system of academic freedom. I find this reason a hasty conclusion. He did give a few examples, such as speech codes may impede polite argument among students. His other example was that apologies from faculty members could be used against a teacher, nonetheless these are simply not weighty enough to support his reason. Another flaw in his argument is his reason that speech codes should not be enforced, particularly in the classroom. In that reason, he is guilty of another hasty conclusion. I believe they should be enforced in a classroom because there have been incidents of hate speech in some form. At Florida Atlantic University, a professor gave students the “option” to stomp on a piece of paper with the name of Jesus on it as part of a Intercultural Communications in-class assignment which offended a devout Mormon student (FAU College Student Who Didn't Want To Stomp On 'Jesus' Runs Afoul of Speech Code). At the University of Illinois, a professor who taught courses on Catholicism openly agreed with his religion’s belief in class that “homosexual sex is immoral” (University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs). The professor’s hate speech act was contained in an email sent out to students. The email follows: “Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.”