Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Doe V. University Of Michigan

In 1989, a court case Doe v. The University of Michigan, was held in a U.S District Court to determine if the University of Michigan’s speech codes on hate speech were violating First Amendment rights. John Doe, a former student at the University of Michigan, declared that speech codes were in fact, infringing upon his education by restricting him from conducting controversial topics that some students deemed offensive. Overall, the case was decided by a majority vote by the U.S District Court in favor of Doe because the court issued that the University of Michigan's policy was unconstitutionally overbroad.
Many verdicts like these intend to show that losing a right does not stop once a student has stepped on a college campus. Universities
But according to court rulings, “public expression is speech and I cannot think of a single Supreme Court case that has ever deemed public expression to be harassment” (Erwin). Many Supreme Court rulings never explore speech for its harassment, but more of how it should protect the people’s constitutional rights of the first amendment. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, students wore armbands as a way of expressing their opinion on the Vietnam war. Those who didn’t remove the armbands would ultimately be set in suspension from the school. The court ruled that “in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression” (Saunders). The only issue the Supreme Court rules are that if perhaps the freedom of expression is being used to distract students from a learning environment in classrooms it becomes a
Some argue that hate speech should be used outside of campus and away from students who might be offended, but in classrooms learning about hate speech is a place to start discussing it. Harvard is an example where speech codes would not benefit students in their education where students who want to become “young lawyers also need education in the habit of equanimity in the face of hostility; in the skill of mustering social pressure to fight those battles of which law is inapt or too expensive; indecency and courage to speak up on behalf of those who are being treated rudely” (Volokh). Being able to stand up and protect others can be taught in classrooms, but if speech codes disallow students to contend their discussions, the experience and education would be lost which would rather than support education, demolish it. Also, the ability to problem solve in a tense situation can be very important for students working their way into lawyers who normally deal with hostile language and social