The Formation of a Campus Hate Speech Code?
In 1990, there were approximately 75 hate speech codes in place at US colleges and universities. In the following year, the number grew to over 300. Today, it is practically certain that every major university, both private and public, has a type of code of conduct or campus hate speech code in place.
They all have different formats. Some codes may prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or even offensive educational environment. Other campuses may ban behavior that could cause emotional distress. General harassment and threats are also outlawed, but not all schools would specifically define their limits in those areas. As such, court rulings have prohibited state-run schools from enacting codes that restrict the constitutional right to free speech based on content. Unfortunately, private institutions such as Case, in contrast, are not subject to these decisions. As a private university, it can choose to ignore public law rulings and draft whatever policy it wants to implement.
In Case's Student Handbook for 2005-2006, on page 94, the Standards of Conduct, where conduct is subject to University disciplinary action. For the first clause, it states that it will include "interference with freedom of speech or movement, or intentional disruption or obstruction of teaching, research, administration, or other functions on University property." However, on page 100 of the Student Handbook, which covers Housing, Residence Life, and Greek Life policies, it shows that your right to freedom of speech may be "construed" as abuse, disorderly conduct, or even harassment. Each of these sections focus on the wonderful world of anti-social behavior. Now, these clauses are for our protection, but it really depends on how it is interpreted by your Resident Assistant (RA), Resident Director (RD), Area Coordinator, or any member of Housing staff.
An attempt to regulate our behavior concerning homosexuality is just another hate speech code. On one end, its purpose is to ensure there is fair and equal access to freedom of speech and other rights when there is an imbalance of power between them and students in the majority. In opposition, the attempt is just a violation of our fundamental right to freedom of speech, or a facet of censorship.
Clearly, a person saying that such a thing is "too gay" or "you're such a fag," cannot automatically be assumed to be a racist statement. In fact, I don't think we would believe that a student listening to "Keep it Gay" from the soundtrack of the Broadway show "The Producers," is indirectly making fun of homosexuals. Of course, please do not think a Brit is being racist when he/she asks you "for a fag" (cigarette).
How can we be sure that our RA's are trained in determining whether such conversations are harmful to homosexuals? Today, we have states passing state constitutional amendments to ensure that marriage is between a man and a woman and some are tryting to legalize them through civil unions or other arrangements. Such events would clearly become a subject topic in conversations between students on campus, in the lobby, hallway, or residence room. Obviously, there will be opinions, both popular and unpopular. The problem is that the new arrangement to combat homosexual discrimination will suppress the unpopular view. We would now have to follow the "politically correct" view on the subject regardless of whether we agreed with it or not.
Gerald Uelmen, Dean of Santa Clara University School of Law, and a fellow of the Center for Applied Ethics, stated that "if these codes shield students from dissenting opinions, how will they learn to respond to such opinions after they graduate? Hate speech codes encourage an artificial reality on campus that prevents students from learning effectively to tolerate diversity."
It is prudent that USG and RHA discuss the new policy concerning the topic of homosexuality with the Housing staff to discover what is the "actual" intent of the new rules, to ensure that students are not restricted to their right to free speech, and to ensure that the Resident Assistants are properly trained in determining whether such language concerning the topic of homosexuality is "offensive and harmful."
Comments
Posted by: Eldan Goldenberg
Posted on: January 19, 2006 05:32 PM
I wonder if you're not reading more into the rules than is meant to be there. What statement[s] in particular do you take to imply that one is banned from stating an agreement with an anti-gay-marriage amendment?
I agree with your last paragraph totally though: if there's any ambiguity at all then it should be cleared up before someone ends up before a disciplinary panel over something that was never supposed to be banned.
Posted by: Joshua Terchek
Posted on: January 19, 2006 05:36 PM
James,
I think most rational people can tell the difference between saying something like "that's gay" to actual harassment and abuse which the clauses you are referring to are designed to deal with. I would find it incredibly difficult to fathom students getting into trouble for saying "I don't believe in gay marriage" or "I am pro-choice." However, going to GLBT meeting and yelling derogatory terms is undoubtedly going to (and should) get you in trouble. I think it is the intent behind the speech. Basically, I think the university is saying that if you intentionally or negligently say something hurtful or abusive to another person on campus, your going to get in trouble. In preparing students for the real world, I think this is absolutely the right tact to take. Almost every business I can think of follow similar guidelines.
Posted by: James Chang
Posted on: January 19, 2006 06:01 PM
Joshua:
I clearly do hope that people will act rationally to judge whether a person's statements are offensive or not. Now the problem will rest on how effective and accurate the Resident Assistants can interpret a student's comments to be offensive or not. Such interpretation will be based on their training, the way they were raised, and their own personal (political, religious, ethnic) viewpoint. The rules are already in the handbook so why the additional emphasis? It is clearly making students more worrisome because their words will be analyzed down to the letter to see if they are acting in any way harmful to those that are pursuing an alternative lifestyle.
Eldan:
With regards to the anti-gay marriage amendment, clearly there were will be two opposite positions on it. Some may choose to interpret that those that support such an amendment are racist and being narrow-minded. However, those individuals may argue that they support it because of their religious, ethical, or personal beliefs. Since the topic is a delicate one, it would be very "difficult" for an RA to decide which statements are considered to be offensive. Then you will have people that possess a minority view on the subject to be afraid of bringing up his/her view because it could become "problematic" for everyone. With the "implied" threat that you could be written up, those that have a dissenting opinion will be less encouraged to bring it up.
Posted by: Colin Slater
Posted on: January 19, 2006 06:22 PM
How do you feel about people being called "nigger", "boy", "darky", "chink", "sand nigger", "spic", "ying yang", etc.? Do you think that the university should permit people to use these words derogatorily against other students? Do you think the university should permit such a blatantly racist culture as that?
Then how is any of these examples any different than calling someone "fag" or "gay"? How could the university suggest that racism is not permissible, but that calling someone "fag" is? It's the very same issue.
The point of the policy is this: you may not act hatefully to other members of the university community, or speak in a manner that is hateful. It's that simple. Case is a diverse community, and such discriminatory and hateful behavior is simply not acceptable.
Of course, please do not think a Brit is being racist when he/she asks you "for a fag" (cigarette).
I can't imagine anyone would confuse this usage with a derogatory usage, in the same way that nobody confuses "dam" with "damn". Implying that there's such a confusion is a silly straw man argument.
Hate speech codes encourage an artificial reality on campus that prevents students from learning effectively to tolerate diversity.
I find quite the opposite to be true. At Case, I've found a large number of my own white male friends who simply don't understand how offensive it is to refer to someone by "Hey Asian" or "ying yang", or any number of other racial slurs. Even though the comments are not directed at me, I am bothered by this. Quite the opposite of the quote, these people haven't learned that this is not acceptable. I don't want Case to become a place where this sort of racism is acceptable.
Posted by: Joshua Terchek
Posted on: January 19, 2006 06:54 PM
It is not a question of whether a statement is "offensive" or not, it is a question of whether it could be deemed "harrassment." In the case that a student were written up for "offensive" speech, there is also recourse through a number of means including judical board, administrative hearing, and an appeal process. I would also like to note on page 99 of the handbook, there is a list of both rights and responiblities that all students are expected to abide by, including: To treat others with respect and consideration and to guarantee them their
individual rights
Going to and living at this University is a privaledge (not a right) and you have to live by the rules it sets forth.
Posted by: James Chang
Posted on: January 19, 2006 08:04 PM
Colin:
Unless you are telling me that there is a epidemic where students using all sorts of derogatory words against every religion, ethnicity, and orientation on campus, then it all comes down to use of "common sense." We are indeed expected to abide the rules stated under the Rights and Responsiblities, but then we also have the University's promise to uphold the right of students to the right of speech, as well as the guidelines governing whether such action is considered to be harassment or disorderly conduct. I would expect that you are questioning whether these rules are indeed enough to promote a truly diverse and happy society. Should we really need to implement a widespread hate speech code where the result will be a dumbed out student body where being "politically correct" is the only way to survive in this community? Is this really the path to true diversity?
Also, "gay" is considered to be a non-disparaging word. Look it up on dictionary.com. All the other examples you have given are considered to be outright derogatory. Even if you think using the word "gay" is considered to be offensive, I believe that RA's should not automatically assume a student that uses that is a racist or is harmful to everyone. You are then assuming that a person is first guilty then proven innocent.
As for the Brit comment, it is definitely a cheesy example, but it does happen. Do not think that everyone is a rational being. Certain things that are acceptable in other cultures may prove to be offensive in others. This is why people should always keep an open mind with first impressions.
At no point in the post where I am promoting the need for racism. This is a matter of common sense and the ability to discuss without the regulated confines of a speech code that restricts our ability to speak our minds. The current rules underlined in the Handbook are more than enough to handle today's situations. The argument is how much more regulation is needed to control the way we can talk. I am also arguing whether the RA's are truly prepared to handle this situation head on.
Posted by: Colin Slater
Posted on: January 19, 2006 10:38 PM
Should we really need to implement a widespread hate speech code where the result will be a dumbed out student body where being "politically correct" is the only way to survive in this community? Is this really the path to true diversity?
Are you suggesting that the path to "true diversity" is a university community that can freely call other students "fag" and "nigger"? Please, I don't want to be a part of your "true diversity". I think we all want a student population that is respectful of others, and that is what the university is trying to achieve.
Even if you think using the word "gay" is considered to be offensive, I believe that RA's should not automatically assume a student that uses that is a racist or is harmful to everyone.
It's not the word itself that's offensive. The word has multiple meanings of course, as you pointed out with "fag". The problem is students saying "You're a fag" or "That's gay" when they clearly mean it as an insult. It's downright obvious when that's the case, and the ambiguity of meaning you seem to imply really does not exist in common usage. It's not as if RAs are going to be running around listening for any instance of the word "gay" and then summarily executing the speaker. The goal is for RAs to send a message to their residents on treating others with respect. This is largely why they're here.
Posted by: James Chang
Posted on: January 19, 2006 11:26 PM
I believe that this University community is mature and experienced enough to share both popular and unpopular opinions on controversial topics without consequence. That is the point of fostering discussion. Case has been fortunate enough to manage to go through certain racist incidents or events that were controversial without resorting to over-regulating the way we act and talk on this campus. Somehow there was an incident which resulted in a change of policy by Housing.
It is also naive to even think that if there was no hate speech code in place, students would go freely around calling each person every ethnic and cultural slur out there. I wish that true diversity can be achieved when everyone can think rationally and be open to what is being discussed. The current standards of conduct is more than enough to ensure that there is respect and that all student rights are protected.
Unfortunately, it seems that RA's are being told to look out for students that mention the word "gay" or "fag" in their conversations. Essentially, there is no good way to monitor such conversations and they would, at the very least, need to eavsdrop to determine whether a student is acting in a harmful or offensive manner. So what if a student called another "a girlie man?" Or if a student remarked to another "don't be such a prick/pu**y?" How well do we know if RA's would really be patient in telling students how to behave? It is probably easier just to forgo the lecture part, and just write the student up, and have the judicial court deal with it.
A problem at other schools are students that abuse the speech code to accuse students of discriminating them or intimidating them. How can this be avoided over here?
Posted by: Eldan Goldenberg
Posted on: January 19, 2006 11:47 PM
I still can't help feeling like you're looking for reasons to be annoyed by the hate speech code. Do you have any evidence (other than hearsay) that "RA's are being told to look out for students that mention the word "gay" or "fag" in their conversations" ? Or any documentation of this:
"A problem at other schools are students that abuse the speech code to accuse students of discriminating them or intimidating them. How can this be avoided over here?"
actually happening?
Posted by:
Posted on: January 20, 2006 12:54 AM
It's interesting to note that everyone has seemed to accept that a hate speech code is inevitable. Why not ensure that the code is safe and sound? Should we look forward to free speech zones next?
Posted by: James
Posted on: January 20, 2006 01:08 AM
Eldan: It's strange to me that there is no one willing to question the need for a speech code. Unfortunately, I wish I had some sort of concrete evidence, but you do have to take in account the possible actions that Housing can take with this. We can imagine the ideal reaction but we must also imagine cases where certain incidents may get blown out of proportion. Even the most unlikely possibility can happen. Also, not all RA's are perfect. As for free speech code abuse, I have seen a few articles and will post them. I think there was a court ruling on free speech zones on private universities recently.
Political correctness has gone into overload over here in the United Kingdom, and I think the US will soon follow suit. You cannot help but notice almost daily news about people getting accused of discrimination and acting inappropriate to another religious, ethnic, or political group. You cannot even criticize anyone without first being alleged to have some sort of racism attitude on the subject. Common sense could have solve these problems, but everyone is so afraid of making some person out there upset.
Posted by: Joshua Terchek
Posted on: January 20, 2006 02:07 AM
Again, you are putting all the emphasis on RA's when in fact there judicial board and administrative review oversee their (RA's) actions. You are also only able to cite three areas in the hand book that deal specifically with abuse, harassment, and disorderly conduct. I agree with Edna here, the rest is mostly heresy. You also seem to have little faith in distiguishing the difference between speech that is offensive and that which is dealt with in the handbook.
Lets play a game to high light the difference.
Wearing an Cleveland Indians hat is?
a) offensive
b) normal
c) harassment
Pointing at some person/fellow student on campus saying "Hey chief wahoo" than procedding to make a placing your hand on your head to look like a feather while trying to do a rain dance is:
a)offensive
b)normal
c)harrassment
Saying something to a fellow coworker like "Veronica, you look really nice today" is
a) offensive
b) normal
c) harrassment
Saying something to a fellow coworker who has expressed no interest in you like "Hey Becky, you got a great set of tits, how about we go over to my place and get freaky" is:
a) offensive
b) normal
c) harrassment
Saying something with a group of friends like "oh your so gay" is
a) offensive
b) normal
c) harrassment
Saying something like "Shut up faggot" to a person in the common area who you don't like and happens to be gay is?
a) offensive
b) normal
c) harrassment
I think you can see my point. Is wearing an Indians hat or saying your gay offensive? Probably to some. Even if the RA found it offensive and wrote a student up for it, the judicial board or administration would overturn it. Like it or not, these are the rules of the real world which Case is trying to prepare students for. You just can't go around calling people names at your workplace because you don't like what they are.
In terms of RAs, you also seem to think that RAs are somehow out to get students, write them up, or punish them in some way. Certainly some are different, but most take a realistic view of the world. I think an RA would have to be naive to think that rules (particularly those involving drinking) don't get broken on campus. Most of the RAs I knew did not seek out problems and would only write up students if the problems became evident (students being loud after warnings, drinking with their doors open, etc). So to think an RA would go out of his or her way to write someone up for saying "thats gay" is pretty far fetched. Likewise, a lecture entailing, "you should watch what you say around other people, they might get offended" is probably good advice to begin with.
Posted by: James
Posted on: January 20, 2006 10:11 AM
I concede that you do have a system where if a mistake has been made by a Resident Assistant, at least the RD, and likely the appropriate Judicial Board will choose to overturn a write-up or any other penalty given to a student. As such, the environment under an educational institution is handled quite differently than under an actual full-time employment job where the rules are explained differently. I would still argue whether additional regulations are needed to maintain a respectful environment for all members of the University community. Clearly, the handbook has attempted to cover all aspects of possible anti-behaviorial problems that could occur, and we do have a non-discrimination policy in place. Your examples do show that we all need to understand what is considered to be offensive, normal, or harassment. Hence, a measure of "common sense" is needed to decide that. Of course, we do have to concede that there is a gray area between each of those words. This would then depend on the RA to decide which one of those actions falls under that category. Then the assistant would have to further decide if the student was intentionally trying to cause harm towards others. I guess then it would depend if the RA would literally follow the rules down to the letter, or be quite liberal about it. Most RA's would know what is the best course of action. A good number of friends I had were also RA's and they did the best they can to resolve any situation that has occurred within the residence hall.
It would be quite ridculous to see 20 students to get written up in one week because they used the word "gay" in passing in their conversations, but then there are a few individuals out there that believe that those students should be punished regardless.
We have been discussing about the use of ethnic slurs and derogatory words. The code could also be used to cover religious or political discrimination. We can discuss quite more with this.
Posted by: Colin Slater
Posted on: January 20, 2006 10:34 PM
I believe that this University community is mature and experienced enough to share both popular and unpopular opinions on controversial topics without consequence.
Calling someone a "fag" is not a mature means of sharing anything. Yet people still do it.
The policy is not about limiting what you can discuss in any way. It's about how one expresses their opinion. Express yourself in a manner that is blatantly disrespectful to other students will not be tolerated at Case.
Posted by: James
Posted on: January 20, 2006 11:02 PM
The problem is that the way we can express ourselves is being regulated. We should not be even concerned about students using the word "fag." We have to look at the big picture. It is so obvious to know that using the words "nigger, chink, fag" are definitely disrespectful. No matter how we talk and discus normally, we now have to ensure that the way we talk must not offend any religious, ethnic, cultural, or political group. This is political correctness gone overboard. Common sense has been thrown out the window. Go ahead and visit Tonguetied
The latest news so far is that staff are being asked to review the standards of conduct and to ensure the rules are being followed. Essentially, it is basically a reminder to uphold current University regulations which is absolutely fine.
Posted by: SusieQ
Posted on: January 26, 2006 07:09 AM
Recently My son's 7th grade history teacher told the class, chess and billiard games were invented by the white man to opress the black race. My son attends a magnet school in a public schoold district. Magnet schools are designed to remedy the past wrong doings of Plessy v. Fergueson and what Brown v. Board of Education could not remedify. When I asked what authority the teacher had given to the class to back his opinion, my son said none--the teacher said in chess, white always gets to move first. In billiard pool the white ball always gets to knock out the colored balls.
When my kid attended a private school in grade school, they hired two chess masters to teach him how to play chess. His GATE teacher told him chess wan invented by an a advisor to a king who wanted a war. To avert the war, they invented the game.
Question:Is the teacher spreading hate race baiting speech to a captaive audience, or is it mere opinion protected by the first amendment? Are such statements subconciously indoctrinating our kids not to play chess, or else they might be compelled to start to believe they might be seen as racists? I don't think it's time to pull my kid back in to white suburbia, but I can't pretend such comments don't bother me.
Posted by:
Posted on: January 26, 2006 08:57 PM
What a crazy story about chess and billiards. I guess by that logic bowling (colored balls hitting white pins) and lawn bowling (colored balls hitting a white ball) were created...just stupid! Teachers like that should be removed from the job.