Blog Post #5: Speech Codes on College Campuses

            During this week’s discussion on Chapter 7 (Provocation to Anger and Words that Wound), we have talked extensively about hate speech online and offline. One area we seem to keep coming back to (especially in the blogs) is the presence of hate speech on college campuses. In the textbook, Tedford and Herbeck mention speech codes on college campuses near the end of Chapter 7. In this section, they provide a few examples of colleges who have implemented speech codes to combat hate speech, such as the University of Michigan’s Policy on Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment of Students in the University Environment. This policy was put into effect to punish “Any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap or Vietnam-era veteran status…” (Tedford 206). As good intentioned as this policy was though, it was deemed unconstitutional when brought before a federal court because it violated the First Amendment.

              After a similar speech code from the University of Wisconsin was struck down and the outcome of R.A.V. v. St. Paul, it was predicted that most campus speech codes would be dismantled. Contrary to this prognosis though, many college campuses still have speech codes in effect (207). This result sparked my interest—why would universities and colleges insist on maintaining their hate speech policies when they were likely to be declared unconstitutional if brought to court? My first thought was that the policy makers knew that they would only have to revoke the codes if they were declared unconstitutional in court, and since the judicial system wasn’t taking proactive measures against speech codes, they were in the clear so long as a student or employee of the University didn’t initiate a civil suit against the policy. However, after reading a Washington Post about the topic of free speech on campuses, I began to realize that there might be more to it than that. Perhaps the reason that policy makers maintain their speech codes is that we, the students, want these rules in place.

              According the Washington Post article, “How free should free speech be on campus?” by Michael S. Roth, “more than 70 percent of college students believe that offensive speech should be subject to disciplinary action…”. When I first read this line, I was a bit skeptical. I figured that there would be some students who did support speech codes, but I never really considered the possibility that the majority of college students would prefer to have policies that regulated hate speech and, by extension, free speech. The more I think it over though, the more I agree that this is a plausible result. From what I have gleamed during these last few weeks, our class is fairly unilateral in terms of our stance on hate speech. That is to say, many of us would probably agree that hate speech is a serious issue. Furthermore, many of us likely believe that hate speech should not be spoken, and that when it is it should be punished. I know that I don’t speak for everyone, but this is at least my stance on the subject, and from what I have heard in class, it would appear that there are others who share this view. Taking all of this into consideration, I realize now why a survey would suggest that a majority of college students would be in favor of policies that discourage and punish hate speech.

Roth also brings up a valid point when analyzing why students want a speech code in effect. He states that:

The appeal to the free exchange of ideas, no matter what the cost to historically vulnerable groups, doesn’t convince most of today’s college students because many of them recognize that not all ideas make it to the marketplace and that, when all kinds of discourse are tolerated, certain groups tend to get hurt again and again—creating discriminatory hurdles for their members. Markets, including the ones for ideas, often work very well, but when they are unregulated, real pollution, real harm, occurs, all too often wounding people who historically have been abused by those with power and privilege (Roth).  

Earlier in the article, Roth alludes to this “marketplace of ideas” and argues that it is the free exchange of speech that drives social and scientific change. However, his statement above recognizes the shortcomings in the practice of a “marketplace of ideas.” More specifically, he seems to have reached a similar conclusion to the one our class did; the individuals who are disseminating hate speech are becoming less persuadable by sound logic. Rather, these individuals choose to stick their beliefs and only listen to those that validate these beliefs. When these individuals are present and participating in the “marketplace of ideas,” the environment of free speech is polluted, as Roth says. Hence, in order to limit the pollution, regulations need to be established. In this case, regulations take the form of campus speech codes.

In conclusion, free speech on college campuses is a topic of great interest and concern. This is apparent from the article cited above as well as our own discussions in class and in our blogs. Before I end this post, I want to state that I did make some assumptions about the stance of our class on hate speech. For this reason, I encourage anyone who disagrees with my assumptions to say so in the comments below so that we can set the record straight. On that note, what do you think about the claim that 70 percent of college students support campus speech codes? Does this seem like an accurate representation to you? Why or why not?

Sources:

Roth, Michael S. “How free should free speech be on campus?” The Washington Post, 22 Sept. 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-free-should-free-speech-be-on-campus/2017/09/22/248ae04e-7e10-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.2e471b9353cd Accessed 12 Oct. 2017.

Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the Unites States. 8^th ed. Strata Publishing, INC., 2017.