Speech codes
Ever since a racist, sexist email sent January 2014 by a former Kappa Sigma fraternity member went viral in March, students, administrators and others outside the university community have struggled to navigate the bounds of regulating student speech.
Many claimed — falsely, though likely out of misunderstanding rather than attempted deceit — that hate speech does not fall under constitutional protections. Even university President Wallace Loh, who holds a Yale law degree, wrote in a campuswide email in March that “a thin, gray line separates free speech from hate speech.”
Sure, Loh went on to write that university officials are “mindful of First Amendment jurisprudence,” but the idea that administrators could so sorely misconstrue the concept of free speech proved unsettling.
Since Loh’s email, officials determined that A.J. Hurwitz, the vitriolic email’s sender, violated no university policies, though they did suggest he take a leave of absence, an offer he — perhaps wisely — chose to take up.
The outcry didn’t end there, however, and beyond several town halls and a protest march on Fraternity Row by a host of offended students, the Student Government Association decided to get involved on a legislative front.
Representatives penned a proposal to revise the Code of Student Conduct to define and regulate hate speech, including it as a violation of the code. Ryan Belcher, the SGA shared governance director and a Senate Executive Committee undergraduate representative, presented a bill modeled on the SGA proposal to the SEC committee.
While it’s certainly true that hate speech has no place on a college campus that values harmony and diversity as much as this one, suspending, expelling or otherwise punishing students who voice such offensive statements as those contained in the email — “f— consent,” a host of racial epithets — would hardly hold up in a court of law, as the university’s legal staff cautioned Loh.
The SEC agreed on that count, as it shot down the bill Tuesday with Belcher providing the lone vote in support of charging a committee with reviewing the legislation.
“I think it’s a useful idea in the sense it encourages civility,” said astronomy professor and SEC member Andrew Harris, who voted against moving the bill along. “In practice, I’m very nervous about how and who will determine what is improper speech.”
In principle, yes, a speech code would ensure civility, just as Harris, Belcher and other students suggest. But practice is far more important than theory, and the application of such a speech code certainly would violate the Constitution.
The SEC was right to throw out the proposed revisions to the code, as hard as students facing racism and sexism might find that to stomach.
The most salient way to combat intolerance on the campus is still to voice speech opposing it, not to regulate speech. That’s simply more incentive for students to stamp out outdated, ignorant attitudes on their own.
