Hilbert College

 Issues in Mass Communication:

Hate Speech on College Campuses

- Home - Students - Tutorials - Student Papers -

by: Jennifer Bonds

23 November 1999

 

The free speech rights of hate groups have long been a topic of debate in the United States, with instances such as the Nazi March in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 drawing national attention. A growing arena for this debate are college and university campuses, where incidents of verbal abuse and violence aimed at historically oppressed groups have risen in recent years. The increase in such incidents has prompted many institutions to enforce codes and policies regulating speech considered offensive to any group based on race, religious background, gender, or sexual orientation.

Incidents of racism and racial bigotry on college campuses are many and varied. In October 1986 a black Citadel cadet was awakened by five sheet-clad intruders chanting his name and burning a cross made of newspaper. Five white cadets confessed to the harassment, but school officials denied any racial climate at the school, and took no action to create any regulating policy (Delgado, 1997 ). At the University of Massachusetts, a racially motivated fight broke out following the New York Mets defeat of the Red Sox in the 1986 World Series. The University responded by revising their school code to punish racially motivated violence. Several fraternity sponsored events at the University of Wisconsin in Madison caused the University to develop it's anti-racism policy.

The First Amendment right of free speech gives one the right to express their opinion on any subject, but there are limits. Hate speech is generally recognized as protected by the First Amendment, unless it comes under the jurisdiction of being classified as libel, obscenity, or "fighting words" (Ethical Spectacle ). Hate speech continues to be a primary point of discussion of free speech issues. The large number of definitions and interpretations of the First Amendment cloud understanding of what is and what is not acceptable speech (Bollinger 1986 ).

College campuses are traditionally thought of as places where freedom and thought of expression are necessary factors in intellectual development and growth. However, when such freedom is used to infringe on the rights of others, many feel that regulation is necessary. In the past few years, serious racial unrest warranting public attention has occurred on more than two hundred university and college campuses (Delgado, 1997 ). Many universities have created their own policies against hate speech in response to such unrest. A national push for campus hate speech regulation was began in 1987, when institutions such as the University of Michigan began adopting regulations on hate speech. A trend was started, and by 1992 over three hundred universities had such regulations) (Sheill, 1998 ) .

Regulation of campus hate speech has many opponents, particularly First Amendment advocates. A main opponent of regulation is the American Civil Liberties Union, which has fought for the freedom of expression of ideas, no matter how offensive, since its founding in 1920. In October of 1990, the ACLU adopted a policy regarding hate speech on college campuses stating that "members of the academic community have the right to hold and to express views that others may find repugnant, offensive, or emotionally distressing" and that educational institutions are obligated to try and combat all forms of bias. (ACLU )

Other opponents feel that the problem lies not in the practice of hate speech, but in the underlying attitudes that cause it. Another downside to regulation of hate speech is that without a public way to express their feelings, racist individuals will instead go underground and release their feelings in a possibly more dangerous way. (Delgado, 1997 ) Also, the regulations against hate speech can also be turned around to prevent anti-hate speech activists and protesters from speaking out. Another reason regulation is opposed it that the power to decide what speech is in the hands of the officials who develop the regulations, not the victims of hate speech. (ACLU

The proponents of hate speech regulation argue that disadvantaged groups are silenced by hate speech. Large amounts of legal literature support the concept that hate speech should receive little to no First Amendment protection, due to the harm that can be done by such speech. Mari Matsuda, in her "Public Response to Racist Speech" article, said

"Universities are special places, charged with pedagogy, and duty-bound to a constituency with special vulnerabilities. Many of the new adults who come to study at the major universities are away from home for the first time, and at a vulnerable stage of psychological development. Students are particularly dependent upon the university for community, for intellectual development, and for self-definition. Official tolerance of racist speech in this setting is more harmful than generalized tolerance in the community at large." (Sheill, 1998 )
 

The debate over campus hate speech is ongoing. Both sides present valid arguments. As Judge Avern Cohn said,

It is an unfortunate fact of our constitutional system that the ideals of freedom are often in conflict. The difficult and sometimes painful task of our legal systems is to mediate the appropriate balance between these competing values" (Sheill 1998 )
 
Until that appropriate balance is created, the issue of campus hate speech regulation will con 1999hate-01.html tinue to remain a topic of debate. In my opinion, regulation of hate speech is not an appropriate solution. No matter how much you regulate the speech of others, you cannot regulate the way a person thinks. If hate groups are not allowed to express their feelings publicly, they will find other ways to do it, and they often use violence to do it. Until you can change the way people feel about each other, hate speech and bigotry will continue.

Bibliography:

ACLU briefing paper "Hate Speech on Campus" (1996) Online: .

Bollinger, Lee C. (1986) The Tolerant Society. Oxford University Press.

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefanic. (1997) Must we Defend the Nazis?. New York University Press.

The Ethical Spectacle "Hate Speech" Online: .

Shiell, Timothy C.(1998) Campus Hate Speech on Trial. University Press of Kansas.

Shriffin, Steven H. (1999) Dissent, Injustice, and the Meanings of America. Princeton University Press.