Learning more about the court precedents that have defined our country's positions towards provocative and hurtful speech has given me more context when it comes to first amendment issues in today's world. Not only this, but I think chapter 7 as a whole relates to the recent incidents involving vandalism on the UMN bridge. I believe it's important to have a discussion about two factors of this incident and where they fall under the student conduct code, both of which fall under the university's "guiding principles": the notion of fostering a safe community and protecting its property from theft, damage, and/or misuse.
After describing the various precedents that more narrowly defined the "fighting words" doctrine in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Tedford and Herbeck summarized the changes made to this decision. They write about how the Chaplinsky decision restricted "insulting" and/or "fighting words," which fell into two categories: offensive language and fight-provoking language that has a tendency to incite violence. The former category was discarded, but the latter has been retained (Pg. 195). With these two categories established, it's easier to look at incidents like the bridge painting here at the U with more context.
For those unaware of the events that took place on the bridge a few days ago, several conservative groups on campus partook in painting murals on the Washington Avenue Bridge to advertise their chapters. They painted statements such as "facts don't care about your feelings" and "least popular 'you're not a minority' minority on campus" (phrasing?), as well as drawing a picture of a "Trump train." It didn't take long for them to be vandalized, however, as messages like "hate will lose" and "racists not welcome" were soon painted onto the original panels. As I wrote before, discussing this incident in a productive manner first requires the acknowledgement of the university's student conduct code - specifically its positions on a healthy community and vandalism. The former states: “The University seeks a community that is free from violence, threats, and intimidation; that is respectful of the rights, opportunities, and welfare of students, faculty, staff, and guests of the University; and that does not threaten the physical or mental health or safety of members of the University community." The latter says, "The University is dedicated to responsible stewardship of its resources and to protecting its property and resources from theft, damage, destruction, or misuse." Given these two specific statements, it appears that the vandalization of these panels was a clear violation of the student conduct code. Under a strict reading of the code, it also appears that the statements espoused on the panels by the conservative groups didn't fall under the umbrella of speech that could be considered "intimidating" or "threatening." With all this being said, however, I don't think the student groups originally painting these messages can be completely absolved.
Fostering an environment in which intellectual discussion can take place requires one to present their beliefs in a nuanced and respectful way. Given the fact that the panels painted by these conservative groups can be considered somewhat inflammatory, it has to be understood that a certain number of people are going to react strongly. While it's clear these reactions didn't fall under the umbrella of acceptable conduct as established by the university, the notion we often discuss in class that "freedom of speech doesn't guarantee freedom from consequence" still holds true in this situation.
Sources:
Cramer, Allison. “Vandalism, Altercation Take Place during Paint the Bridge at College Republicans' Mural.” Mndaily.com - The Minnesota Daily, 6 Oct. 2017, www.mndaily.com/article/2017/10/vandalism-altercation-take-place-during-paint-the-bridge-at-college-republicans-mural.
After describing the various precedents that more narrowly defined the "fighting words" doctrine in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Tedford and Herbeck summarized the changes made to this decision. They write about how the Chaplinsky decision restricted "insulting" and/or "fighting words," which fell into two categories: offensive language and fight-provoking language that has a tendency to incite violence. The former category was discarded, but the latter has been retained (Pg. 195). With these two categories established, it's easier to look at incidents like the bridge painting here at the U with more context.
For those unaware of the events that took place on the bridge a few days ago, several conservative groups on campus partook in painting murals on the Washington Avenue Bridge to advertise their chapters. They painted statements such as "facts don't care about your feelings" and "least popular 'you're not a minority' minority on campus" (phrasing?), as well as drawing a picture of a "Trump train." It didn't take long for them to be vandalized, however, as messages like "hate will lose" and "racists not welcome" were soon painted onto the original panels. As I wrote before, discussing this incident in a productive manner first requires the acknowledgement of the university's student conduct code - specifically its positions on a healthy community and vandalism. The former states: “The University seeks a community that is free from violence, threats, and intimidation; that is respectful of the rights, opportunities, and welfare of students, faculty, staff, and guests of the University; and that does not threaten the physical or mental health or safety of members of the University community." The latter says, "The University is dedicated to responsible stewardship of its resources and to protecting its property and resources from theft, damage, destruction, or misuse." Given these two specific statements, it appears that the vandalization of these panels was a clear violation of the student conduct code. Under a strict reading of the code, it also appears that the statements espoused on the panels by the conservative groups didn't fall under the umbrella of speech that could be considered "intimidating" or "threatening." With all this being said, however, I don't think the student groups originally painting these messages can be completely absolved.
Fostering an environment in which intellectual discussion can take place requires one to present their beliefs in a nuanced and respectful way. Given the fact that the panels painted by these conservative groups can be considered somewhat inflammatory, it has to be understood that a certain number of people are going to react strongly. While it's clear these reactions didn't fall under the umbrella of acceptable conduct as established by the university, the notion we often discuss in class that "freedom of speech doesn't guarantee freedom from consequence" still holds true in this situation.
Sources:
Cramer, Allison. “Vandalism, Altercation Take Place during Paint the Bridge at College Republicans' Mural.” Mndaily.com - The Minnesota Daily, 6 Oct. 2017, www.mndaily.com/article/2017/10/vandalism-altercation-take-place-during-paint-the-bridge-at-college-republicans-mural.
Cramer, Allison. “Vandalism of Conservative Groups' Panels on Washington Avenue Bridge Continues.” Mndaily.com - The Minnesota Daily, 7 Oct. 2017, www.mndaily.com/article/2017/10/vandalism-of-conservative-groups-panels-on-washington-avenue-bridge-continues.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed., Strata
Publishing, Inc., 2017.
While I agree that the panel painted by the republican student group was not technically "fighting words," I think it's very important to note that the signage was intended to be inflammatory. Young republicans embrace the image of a universally hated intellectually elite minority, though that is wildly inaccurate- they tend to fall back on trolling and making fun of other people for having empathy as a way to disguise the idiocy and the (often) white supremacist & classist ideas inherent to their political philosophy.
ReplyDeleteHonestly though, this whole controversy should never have happened- the college republicans should not have been allowed to paint another panel after using their space last year to paint BUILD THE WALL. On a campus that claims to embrace diversity, telling every student from Mexico, every student who has undocumented parents or is undocumented themselves, that they are not welcome is hate speech. While I do believe that campuses should be open to people and ideas from both sides of the political spectrum, under the current administration there's a pretty thin line between undying support for GOP policies and being an out-and-out racist. Speech that falls on the wrong side of that line endangers minority students and cannot be protected by university administration.
I thought your blog was interesting because I also chose to write about the UMN bridge incident. Specifically, I would like to comment on your last paragraph that talks about conservative groups being considered somewhat inflammatory. The University of Minnesota is an extremely liberal environment that doesn’t necessarily reflect the views of a United States political climate. I think as students of the UMN it is very important that we understand that. It seems that the panel wouldn’t be considered inflammatory in a different setting. The college of Republicans should take their audience into consideration when creating a panel, but the student group is representing a major political party in the United States. Just because this isn’t a popular view here doesn’t mean they deserve to have their work vandalized. While I don’t align with their views, I believe they have the right to paint their panel however they see fit as long as it isn’t considered abusive speech. If students had a problem with the panel it should have been handled in a different manner that did not violate the code of conduct.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThis connects heavily with something we briefly spoke about in class where being protected under the first amendment does not necessarily absolve someone of consequence. You’ve also mentioned this. UMN heavily advocates for diversity and embraces different people from all over the world. The group of conservatives that came together and thought it was a good idea to draw a trump train and “build the wall” in two separate occurrences, one can only wonder if there’s true intent to harm, or cause offense. I spoke about abusive speech in my post this week, and speech that offends a certain people is considered under that definition. Also according to Tedford and Herbeck, “Longterm reinforcement of negative social attitudes such as racism sexism and homophobia,” (202), are considered to be under abusive speech. On a bridge where students come to spread and exchange positive word on the many student groups on campus; the way this specific group used their platform was not considerate of the entire student body that attends the university for the furthering of their education.