Today in class we looked at an article (Jim Crow on Fraternity Row) and a series of pictures from fraternity parities at Auburn University. To quote the article, the party included fraternity members "dressed in KKK costumes. . .black face, and even went so far as to simulate the lynching of a member in blackface. The question is, should THIS kind of speech (racist, descriminatory, highly threatening and disgusting speech) be prohibited on campus? While I believe yes, I cannot deny that the First Amendment protects student speech, including symbolic speech, no matter what the subject. There is just one exception: fighting words. Fighting words are those which incite an immediate violent response, according to an article by David L. Hudson Jr. Universities have a responsibilty, much like elementary and secondary schools, to make their environment a safe place for students. One university policy mentioned in Hudson Jr.'s article was that of the University of Michigan which prohibited "behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed . . .that . . Creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment". While this policy effectively prohibits the kind of activities that occurred at Auburn it also prevents a significant amount of protected speech and remains vague and overbroad. At what point does a comment, a psychology class study, etc. become forbidden by policy? There is no real way to know. Speech codes have the potential for abuse and unneccesary censorship, as is stated on the FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) website. For instance Davidson College's policy which bans "innuendoes," "teasing," "jokes," and "comments or inquiries about dating" seems excessive. "Inquiries about dating" would mean asking out a fellow classmate is banned. And the ban on jokes would kill off any campus improv troupe, comedy group, or visiting show. There is a huge difference between this kind of censorship and that which needs to occur at Auburn.
Taking a look at the speech restrictions present at one of my prospective schools, Syracuse University, I saw policies that were clearly restrictive, yet fair and others that seemed vague. For instance, the school's policy on harassment was very clear: "Harassment, whether physical or verbal, oral or written, which is beyond the bounds of protected free speech, directed at a specific individual(s), easily construed as "fighting words," and likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace." Speech that provokes an immediate violent response is banned, and that is fine by me. However, another policy that struck me less specific and well-outlined was that on bias. Some examples given were "telling jokes, name calling, stereotyping, offensive graffiti, avoiding or excluding others." What the prospective student is left asking is what, in fact, is offensive graffiti? Is it art that offends someone? Overall, I think Syracuse has a fine policy and no reasonable student looking to learn and thrive in their environment should feel overly censored. However, there are examples (such as the graffiti) of places where student's speech is more limited than what is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. I feel that, had the Auburn parties taken place at Syracuse, there would have been significant fallout, as they were a complete breach of university policies on bias and harassment. As a prospective student, I have no issue with this. I would not want to attend a school that allowed such hideous conduct to go unchecked, without punishment and education to prevent further incidents.
While I agree with FIRE's definitions and share some of the organization's passion for freedom of expression, I also value the safety and comfort of students at universities (especially since I will be joining them shortly) which I feel they often ignore. At some schools the codes seem too broad to be of real service to students and instead simply inhibit expression. At others, codes appear reasonable and a yellow or red light (as depicted on the FIRE website) was not a negative to me. Those red and yellow lights, those codes, are what prevents incidents like the party at Auburn, incidents that would make me feel threatened and uncomfortable at school. Speech codes need not be a terrible thing, so long as they are clear, concise, and serve to educate and make the school a better environment for all. However, when they become too restrictive and larger than the issue itself, they infringe on student's rights, and demand revision.
No comments:
Post a Comment