Speech Codes On College CampusesEssay Preview: Speech Codes On College CampusesReport this essayA Quick Fix:Speech Codes on College CampusesBeginning in the 1980s and going strong into the early 90s, speech codes on college campuses restricted the radical words that initiated protests by students, faculty, and staff members. Limitations defined by college administrators controlled the context and content of what its affiliates could say freely in the jurisdiction of the campus. In spite of this, outraged students demanded that their First Amendment rights be protected and took their colleges speech codes to the court room. Although Federal Courts felt that speech codes were based on good intentions, the plaintiffs always brought home the gold. Speech codes were deemed unconstitutional under the ordinance that they were either “vague” or “overbroad” (as cited in Hudson Jr., 2005). Speech codes were quick fixes to a deeper problem; college administrators were putting a band-aid on a wound that needed stitches.
Proponents advocating for speech codes on college campuses claimed that it provided a safe environment for the campuses affiliates. Students should not have had to fear repercussions for their “immutable characteristics” or opinions based on theories, beliefs, or morals (Fraleigh and Tuman, 1997, p. 170). Hate speech, which is any form of insult directed at a single group based on a similar characteristic, was the trigger that jump started speech codes. Regarded by some as unnecessary for the learning environment, hate speech has provoked many violent crimes, but even fiercer battles within the walls of the courtroom. Proponents maintained that hate speech was comparable to fighting words, a type of speech that does not receive First Amendment protection (Hudson Jr., 2005). Speech codes were not developed to restrict speech, but to protect the victims from the offensive words made by others on a college campus.
The definition of “hate speech” by the American Bar Association is as follows:
“Threat or attempt to cause harm” is defined as any threat to other persons, property, group, or institution, directly or indirectly, against any person of the same or substantially related race, religion, sex, national or ethnic origin, age, gender, political views, sexual orientation, gender expression or expression of color, or any other characteristic of any race, color, sexual orientation, or disability.”
The definition is as follows:
“Failing to adequately respect” is defined as “defaming or disparaging or insulting a member of the public, his family, members, spouse, parents, or any other person using, trying to use, or causing to be used the improper or vulgar conduct, expression, or omissions of those practices or of any persons or places under the direct, direct, or indirect control and supervision of any person.”
There are, however, some exceptions that do not specifically name “Failing to appropriately respect” as to race, color, gender, national or ethnic origin, age, gender, national or ethnic origin, or disability. For example, the definition of “Failing even remotely to properly regard” as being a violation of federal standards and guidelines would include an individual who has been discriminated against, or who has had a significant adverse experience or who has been treated unfairly or who has exhibited or is exhibiting intolerance for persons of a different background or national group, regardless of national origin.
The definition of a crime, as applied to hate speech, is an issue that has been referred not only to California courts and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (D.C.), but also to other states and the Supreme Court of the United States (in which cases we have discussed all the provisions of the First Amendment–including the right to keep and bear arms. See G. Wilson, Unreasonable Gather: Unconstitutional Intolerance in American Politics, 21 Harv. L.Rev. 1357, 1771–43 (1979)), and to the United States Supreme Court. The current federal definition is one of the most expansive in the world’s history, encompassing all speech, including hate speech, and includes all forms of physical violence on college campuses.
Violent speech does not simply require the threat or attempt to cause harm to an individual or group of individuals, but a violent expression of an opposing opinion and attitude, which the speaker seeks to influence, undermine, or suppress. Indeed, it appears the very definition of hate speech applies to all forms of violent expression of this type. In 1967, the American Bar Association held a nationwide national conference titled, “How Violent Is ‘Hate Speech’?: Definitions and Legal Definitions,” at the University of California, Berkeley Center for the Study of Hate Speech (UTBM). This conference was convened to determine the laws governing the expression of hate speech. It was in the course of this discussion that two federal statute codified the U.S. definition of hate speech. A law concerning hate speech in this category prohibits speech that “breathes or defames, as that term is defined, any form or act of hostility, persecution, hatred, or discrimination against any person or group”. In 1992, a statute was enacted that expressly prohibited hate speech aimed at the United States. In 1993, a federal statute was enacted that defines hate speech as that which “attacks, defames, or attacks on persons that are of the same or substantially related race, color, national or ethnic origin, age, gender, political views, sexual orientation, gender expression or
To answer the question of whether speech codes were constitutional or not, we must look at both sides being argued. Advocates wished to limit speech in respects to those whom it offended, whereas critics declared if we were to infringe on the rights of some, we all would be next (ACLU, 1994). Both issues were addressed on solid grounds with substantial information that argued every angle. However, when brought before the Federal Court, critics were considered “correct” and the government rejected all cases of college speech codes being constitutional. Nevertheless, the courts did state that if a college was able to make a speech code policy that did not infringe on First Amendment rights, the courts would declare it constitutional (Fraleigh and Tuman, 1997, p. 193). Although this opened the door to possibility, colleges have since not been able to correctly introduce constitutional speech codes.
It is ironic that the federal courts maintain that a college may impose speech codes on their affiliates, but once brought up in federal court, the speech code is always considered unconstitutional. Perhaps this thought, that speech can be limited, is used to support proponents that desire speech codes on college campuses. If proponents know there is hope for the future, then that hope will entice them to continue to search for possible speech codes. However, if speech codes keep being rejected, then will proponents still be satisfied with hope? This further develops the idea that speech codes are band-aids. The federal court is preventing riots from speech code proponents by giving them hope; speech codes prevent protests on college campuses by restricting speech. Either way, preventing riots or protests, we are not solving any problems. Instead, it is our duty as civilians to voice what we perceive to be true, although it may hurt others or cause distress within our community. You can never truly understand and appreciate the rights given to us by our founding fathers if you never challenge them.
Another issue rising from this situation involves the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and the FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). Both are foundations developed to protect all forms of speech. The ACLU produced an article which answered similar questions prompted by civilians who wanted to know why the ACLU would defend free speech of racist, sexists, homophobes, and other bigots. The answer is simple: restricting the speech of one group jeopardizes the free speech of all groups (ACLU, 1994). This was the same precedent set forth by critics of speech codes; if we were to limit the right to hate speech on a college campus, then we have limited the right of those speaking out against hate speech on a college campus. Speech codes are unconstitutional not only because they infringe on First Amendment rights, but also because they prevent civilians from answering the real problem. If we are to solve the problem of hate speech, then we must not simply cover the issue up; rather, we must uncover the sources that provoke and continue hate speech among ourselves.
Speech