Assaultive Words and Constitutional Norms (original) (raw)
Related papers
Regulation of Hate Speech on University Campuses
Regulation of Hate Speech on University Campuses 2 As Americans, the right to freedom of speech is the primary foundation that we utilize to share our ideals and beliefs with those around us. Through having free and open conversations with those we oppose, we aim to develop a better understanding of the other, as well as a better understanding of ourselves, and our core values and beliefs. With this mentality in mind, education professionals proceed to defend the right to freedom of speech at all costs. That being said, the cost of freedom in this day and age is the well being of students in marginalized groups.
Defying the Constitution The Rise, Persistence, And Prevalence Of Campus Speech Codes
Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2009
Paterson University was charged with sexual harassment for replying to his professor in a private e-mail that his religious beliefs opposed homosexuality and viewed it as a perversion. 16 These cases illustrate that, not only do speech codes chill protected expression by their very existence, they are also often enforced in such a manner as to censor protected expression. The topic of speech codes has been covered in both legal scholarship 17 and in mainstream publications. 18 However, there is a surprising dearth of legal scholarship attempting to comprehensively analyze the continued prevalence of speech codes and their impact on campus speech, as well as to effectively answer their proponents. This article seeks to fill the gap in the literature. Part I of this article details several theories commentators have posited to explain the emergence of speech codes. It then outlines the case law on speech codes, under which courts have uniformly struck down speech codes challenged through litigation. Part II of the article discusses the First Amendment doctrinal problems presented by speech codes: overbreadth, vagueness, and content-and viewpoint-based discrimination. It proceeds to analyze the ways in which speech codes have led to the restriction of free speech in higher education. Part III debunks common justifications for speech codes and demonstrates that speech codes do not offer the benefits that their proponents claim. Part IV demonstrates that speech codes are still prevalent at colleges and universities nationwide, using data from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's (FIRE) most recent annual speech codes report. 19 In that section, I will also respond to arguments that speech codes are not as prevalent as FIRE's research indicates, by demonstrating that FIRE's methodology offers the most accurate assessment of schools' policies toward student speech. Part V offers several potential solutions to the problems discussed in the article. The most direct of these is to continue to challenge the constitutionality of speech codes in court. A second measure is public exposure of speech codes, since they tend to be heavily disfavored by the public at large and universities 16. Press Release, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE),
University Hate Speech Codes: Toward an Approach Restricting Verbal Attack
1996
This paper reviews events leading to the University of Michigan speech codes, identifies the state of the law following the Doe V. the University of Michigan decision, points out problems in suggested alternatives to the code, and outlines an approach that protects students from hate speech while maintaining first amendment rights. The paper first provides a historical context for the consideration of speech codes by citing these events: (1) following a number of hateful acts at the University of Michigan, the I:. ited Coalition against Racism threatened to sue the university for not maintaining or creating a nonracist environment; (2) the university responded with a speech code, but the code was soon challenged in court by a biopsychology student who maintained that the code could sanction him for aspects of his research; and (3) federal courts ruled in favor of the student on the basis that the code was too broad and that university officials had attempted to enforce it in inappropiate situations. Noting that some have used the court's decirion to argue against the implementation of any speech codes on college campuses, the paper argues that the problem is not speech codes in general but the inspecific nature of the Michigan code in particular. The paper concludes that alternatives to speech codes are not convincing, since verbally assaulted students are not in a position to fight back, especially if they do not feel the university stands with them against racism and hate. (Contains 53 references).
When Hate Circulates On Campus To Uphold Free Speech
Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, Vol. 80, 2019
On Inauguration Day 2017, Milo Yiannopoulos gave a talk sponsored by the University of Washington College Republicans entitled "Cyberbullying Isn't Real." This chapter is based on participant-observation conducted in the crowd outside the venue that night and analyzes the violence that occurs when the blurring of the boundaries between "free" and "hate" speech is enacted on the ground. This ethnographic examination rethinks relationships between law, bodies, and infrastructure as it considers debates over free speech on college campuses from the perspectives of legal and public policy, as well as those who supported and protested Yiannopoulos's right to speak at the University of Washington. First, this analysis uses ethnographic research to critique the absolutist free speech argument presented by the legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman. Second, this essay uses the theoretical work of Judith Butler and Sara Ahmed to make claims concerning relationships between speech, vulnerability, and violence. In so doing, this chapter argues that debates over free speech rights on college campuses need to be situated by processes of neoliberalization in higher education and reconsidered in light of the ways in which an absolutist position disproportionately protects certain people at the expense of certain others.
Peabody Journal of Education, 2022
Frequent incidents of racist hate speech on college and university campuses continue to instigate an ideological battleground between legal purists, anti- racist scholars, and those otherwise situated somewhere therein. We find that arguments from legal purists are predicated upon a false-equivalency between racist and anti-racist speech where the effect, value, and embedded power dynamics of the former are often disregarded. We engage in a phenomenological analysis of a four-year, private institution – Clearview College (CVC)—where a controversial speaker was invited to campus by a conservative student organization. We specifically interrogate how the seemingly race-neutral free speech policies at CVC, which were informed by the “Chicago Principles,” were racially structured in impact. We utilize a conceptual framework that demarcates intellectual safety and dignitary safety as a foundational point of departure to analyze the responses from 20 undergraduate students. The responses from focus groups revealed two primary themes: (1) racist hate speech as a threat to dignitary safety, and (2) institutional retribution against students defending their dignitary safety. Implications for higher education policy and praxis are provided.
The Politics of Speech on Campus
Sociological Forum, 2021
This article is concerned with college-aged activists' discussions about provocative speakers invited to their campuses. Our research shows how the students on the front lines of debates over free expression and inclusion conceptualize the stakes and think about the consequences of their political involvement. Our analysis goes beyond simplistic portrayals of young people as being either "for" or "against" speech rights. Instead, we argue that conservative activists adopt an absolutist stance toward the First Amendment, which is encouraged by outside national organizations that regard free expression as a wedge issue in higher education. This contrasts with progressive activists, who struggle to weigh the value of individual freedoms against the potential harms caused by derogatory or hostile words and symbols. Ultimately, our semi-structured interview data allow us to see the complex (and sometimes contradictory) reasoning behind students' responses to contentious speaking events at colleges and universities