Hate Speech
The writers of the First Amendment of the Constitution had the notable luxury of not being forced to deal with the issue of campus speech. The ever controversial issue of free speech, with all its loopholes and murky gray areas, grows even more incomprehensible when it descends upon an unsuspecting college campus.
Considering the melting pot of people from widely varied backgrounds, perspectives, and ideals that college creates, universities seem undeniably ripe for the speech controversy. One of the primary issues presently under constant scrutiny is whether or not speech restrictions should exist within the college environment.
The unclear and often over-emotional nature of this controversy has left innumerable victims grasping for some semblance of a solution. At the very least, however, these victims desire an explanation for what has happened to them. Eden Jacobowitz, for example, was charged for rebuking a group of rather vociferous African American women who were disturbing his study time. Eden angrily called them “water buffalo,” which the young women took as an offensive racist remark. This case could certainly be defined as falling into the infamous “gray area” of protected speech. Numerous people have sided with the unfortunate Eden Jacobowitz since many interpret his insult as a mere expression of anger not affected in any way by the race of the women. As previously mentioned, the rather unclear guidelines and emotion-laden arguments of such ambiguous cases leave victims like Eden reaching for some reasonable explanation.
Those brave enough to take the helm of this unquestionably complex issue includes people ranging from everyday college students, to qualified university faculty, to legal experts. From this cross-section of people with differing perspectives and lifestyles emerge two distinct sides of the campus speech issue. One faction asserts that stringent campus speech regulations need to be implemented immediately in hopes of a quick fix for the quandary at hand. Those supporting the other major viewpoint offer much different solutions, however. They argue that campus speech regulations should, for the most part, be avoided because of their general ineffectiveness and failure to address the problem at its core. Their proposed resolutions generally center on the belief that attacking the problem at its ignorant roots through education and open coexistence are the only plausible long lasting solutions.
The First Amendment is the central focus of the majority of arguments on both sides of the issue. Therefore, in order to fully understand and appreciate the validity of each argument, a general explanation of the purpose of the First Amendment should be defined. America was founded on the premise of universal acceptance. The early citizens of this new nation were finally relieved of the burden of religious and speech oppression endured under Great Britain’s rule. Therefore, when drafting the principles and ideals that were to be the foundation of this country, they understandably desired them to vary as much as possible from Britain’s old doctrine. The implicit purpose of the First amendment is stated very clearly by professional lawyer Susan Gellman in her article “Sticks and Stones Can Put You in Jail, But Can Words Increase Your Sentence?” She wrote that the first amendment was created to ensure “the availability of the broadest possible range of ideas and expression in the marketplace of ideas” (Gellman 177).
In order to devise any definite solution to this dilemma, we must, as with any problem, be fully aware of its source. The inherent problem lies with the ignorance of the general populace regarding persons of other races, creeds and genders. From that ignorance stems fear, and from that fear rises an instinctual feeling that the group is some sort of a threat. The old adage “we fear that which we do not understand” supports this logic beautifully.
I believe that everyone will agree that the best solution to any ignorance is the antithesis of ignorance: education. Therefore, what better place to combat ignorant hatred through education than at the very institutions that stand for the pursuit of knowledge- college and university campuses.
Admittedly, speech regulations would probably serve their purpose, to some extent, as a deterrent to hateful speech. However, society of Professional Journalists president Paul McMasters disputes this in his essay “Free Speech vs. Civil Discourse”. He surmises that speech codes are futile because, rather than encouraging education, they have enforced a form of ignorance (McMasters 173). He seems to be contending that by regulating people’s speech the institution is thinking for the people. This eliminates any need for hateful, ignorant people to evaluate their own moral standpoints since it is being done for them. Speech codes only change people’s actions, not the actual beliefs which cause their actions. Therefore, these beliefs will continue to cause hateful actions once the codes are taken away. Renowned author Franklyn Haiman echoes McMaster’s view in his book Speech Acts and the First Amendment. Haiman states, suppressing the overt verbal or symbolic expression of a group does not make the attitudes that give rise to such expression go away (Haiman 194).
Virtually all of the authors, even those in favor of speech regulations, do acknowledge the great value of education. Speech regulation advocate and Georgetown law professor Mari Matsuda emphasizes just that in a speech she gave at various universities entitled “Assaultive Speech and Academic Freedom.” She reiterates that the important work at hand is “learning to talk across difference” (Matsuda 153).
Philosophy professor Timothy Shiell concurs in his essay Campus “Hate Speech on Trial”. He asserts that it is in a university’s best interest “to respond to hate speech with educative and counter speech measure rather than punitive ones” (Shiell 168). Examples of these educative countermeasures could include speakers on racism and classes on eliminating prejudice. Susan Gellman affirms Shiell’s belief that education is in the universities’ best interest, proclaiming that “more affective (approaches) than criminal sanctions may be ignored if we pin our hopes to criminal sanctions. These (the more effective approaches) include education…” (Gellman 181).
To create some tangible reasons to support their seemingly sensible proposition of education, the authors offer numerous potential solutions. Paul McMasters suggests implementing “a university statement of principle about diversity and multiculturalism that students would see” (McMasters 175). This would serve the purpose of having stated guidelines indicating that the university does indeed maintain a stance against hate speech. It would function merely as a guide for the moral conduct of students without forcing an unconditional punitive policy upon them that would encourage ignorance.
Timothy Shiell supports McMasters with his claim that “in the long run: developing grassroots support for racial equality (is more effective than) having a speech czar dictate that the word “nigger” cannot possibly have a positive meaning.” Shiell should not be misinterpreted as implying that the word nigger has a positive connotation. Rather, he is merely referring to McMaster’s idea that an unconditional punitive policy would encourage ignorance and discourage the moral contemplation that this issue deserves. Susan Gellman further clarifies this argument with her statement “Without occasional reminders that there is another, even a ‘wrong,’ way to look at something, we are unlikely to think very often about why we look at it as we do, and why it is we think that perspective is ‘right’ (Gellman 179).
Often when dealing with the elimination of speech regulations, arguments similar to that of law professor and speech regulations advocate Charles Lawrence III arise. In his article “If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus,” he argued that even though “regulation…(has) been characterized…as work of ‘thought police,’…it does nothing more than prohibit intentional face-to-face insults” (Lawrence 158). Although Lawrence probably did so inadvertently, his statement supports arguments against regulations. Note that Lawrence says, “…it does nothing more than prohibit intentional face-to-face insults.” That statement perfectly illustrates the limitations of hate speech codes. Speech regulations do nothing more than stop nose to nose insults. They do not, as he admits, affect thought in any degree. Therefore, many people restricted under such rules will still hold to their hateful beliefs. As a result, when they’re released into the world outside of college, they will be free to express their hatred once again. This concurs with previously mentioned arguments from McMasters and Haiman that regulations are not permanent solutions.
As previously stated, the implementation of these education programs and guided coexistence will necessarily result in the elimination of punitive speech codes. This understandably causes concerns that campuses will suddenly become lawless cesspools of hatred and moral depravity. However, the students and faculty of colleges and universities still must comply with the laws of the United States. Therefore, if someone is, for example, physically or verbally harassing someone in any threatening manner, they will still be punished in compliance with the law. This will serve the purpose of keeping civility on campus just as the very same laws function in the world outside of the campus cocoon. It will also help to prepare college students for the outside world by teaching them to follow precisely the same laws they will be dealing with throughout their lives.
Hate speech is indeed a very real and increasingly prevalent problem on college campuses. It has grown to such proportions that a solution must be implemented as soon as possible. Although specific punitive speech regulations for universities would seem to provide the quickest solution, they may not actually be the most effective. Regulations generally only stop people from expressing their attitudes; they don’t actually sway their ignorant attitudes more toward respect, tolerance, and equality. The ideal solution is to combat the ignorance causing hatred through education toward peaceful coexistence. With these new peaceful attitudes in place, people’s actions will obviously follow their attitudes, and we will see a virtual elimination of hateful actions.
