Speech Codes on Campus
Free Speech
The founding fathers of this country included the freedom of speech as a fundamental right in the Constitution. That freedom has been judiciously (more or less) protected these past 230 years, exceptions carefully being made only when confronted by other elemental rights. For the past two decades, however, this nation’s universities have sought to abridge this right by installing so-called ‘speech codes’ on their campuses. These verbal indemnifies have provoked a running debate among students, campus faculty, and lawmakers. The center of the disagreement lies with the conflict between civil rights and civil liberties: do people retain the right to free speech when they use it to offend and put down others?
According to USA Today, speech codes came into being around the late 1980s and early ‘90s as racial minorities on campus began to increase (Marklein, 2003). Today, estimates have been given that anywhere from one-third to two-thirds of this nation’s colleges have speech codes. Gerald Uelmen claims that in 1990 the speech code count reached 75, but in one year that number had swelled to over 300 (Santa Clara University).
The intellectual conflict over campus speech codes involves students, faculty, officials, civil groups, and judges on all levels. Thus far the courts have sided primarily with those students punished by vague, broad or otherwise unconstitutional codes. Several organizations have been formed by students to protest restrictions on speech in their universities. Numerous policies have been struck down over the past two decades, but university officials are still determined to draft better rules in their quest to make allegedly better students. Both sides encourage independent thought, and both advocate tolerance. Each, however, embraces a very different philosophy.
Individuals and groups opposed to speech codes invoke the First Amendment as the initial line of defense: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (Brinkley, 2007, p. A-17). Universities of all places, as centers of intellectual growth and the exchange of ideas, should not be above the right of free speech. Speech codes also have a history of vagueness and subjective judging standards. For example, a code by the University of Michigan forbade such remarks or behavior as “Women just aren’t as good in this field as men” or “a dormitory party in which a student is not invited because some think she’s a lesbian”, as stated in a university handbook (Chatelle, 1996). Once a university sets a code, the administration can make all manner of excuses to punish people under it, expressly because there are unclear lines between what is acceptable and what is not. Speech which is disagreeable to some may not be to others.
People have the right to express their opinions, including any harsh or rude judgments against others. By restraining the words individuals or minority groups speak, no matter how unpleasant, their ideas and opinions are restrained as well. Yet how can one defend hate speech, which is both hurtful and irrational? In the words of Committee A of the American Association of University Professors, “A speech code unavoidably implies an institutional competence to distinguish permissible expression of hateful thought to what is proscribed as thoughtless hate” (O’Neil, 1997, p. 53). On the political front, students with nonconforming points of view may not be supported, while those with conforming views will.
In the minds of speech code opponents, universities go about remedying hateful speech in entirely the wrong way: they attempt to sweep the problem under the rug instead of actively arguing against it. In the words of Chatelle, “Although the best remedy for bad speech is more speech... Censorship suggested itself [to universities] as a quick-and-easy alternative” (1996).
Those who favor speech codes side with civil rights over civil liberties. “As an institution of higher education we encourage and promote free speech", Shippensburg University stated in 2003 (Lewin). However, “We do have expectations that our students will conduct themselves in a civil manner that allows them to express their opinions without interfering with the rights of others.” Hateful speech - or any other demeaning statement - is simply not necessary in order to get a point across. It hurts other’s feelings, sours the campus environment, and impedes a student’s ability to learn. “Who would want to live in a society ten or twenty percent of whose members were regularly demeaned by face-to-face insults and in popular culture?” (Delgado, 1998, p. 69). Furthermore, hate speech such as “N_____, go back to Africa” does no service in conveying information (Delgado, 1998, p. 71), serving only to degrade others’ sense of worth and self-esteem. As a hindrance to the educational process, hateful or debasing speech has no place on a college campus.
Additionally, the speech which codes seek to abolish is directed mainly at ethnic/cultural/religious/intellectual minorities, who are suppressed by the majority from expressing their beliefs. When insults or degrading comments are directed at a minority student “an overt history of subjugation intensifies the verbal attack that humiliates and strikes institutional fear in the victim” (Uelmen, Santa Clara University). By allowing negative and hateful views full rein, intolerance is promoted among the student body.
As has been said before, both sides claim to encourage tolerance on campus. Both also claim to encourage independent and critical thought. Opponents of speech codes allow equal expression for every view by not censoring the feelings behind those views. Advocates for speech codes, on the other hand, give diverse minorities equal opportunity by censoring dissenting views from the ‘majority’. Which one is right?
