Regulation and Education:

Academic Freedom and Hate Speech on the College Campus

Within the empire of American higher education, there exists the idea of academic freedom – a concept that purports the notion that members of a scholarly community can express, research and speak as they desire. Despite this alleged freedom, a value conflict exists when actions such as hate speech are introduced to the college campus. If one student is speaking offensively and one student is being offended at the same time, how can both of their rights be protected equally? This concept targets issues of regulation, morality and the purpose of higher education.

First, sometimes what is being said is not nearly as important as how it is being said and the context in which it is being used. Students should be allowed to express their ideas by any means necessary but should be shown that there is a socially acceptable way for expressing thoughts and ideas on a college campus. Second, context matters. For example, commencement is a specific event offered to honor an institution’s graduates. Thoughts of celebration and reflection should be on the minds of speakers, officials, students and families. Universities should think carefully about their selection of speakers at these occasions as some might misconstrue the purpose of commencement and use it as a free and open public forum to express their own personal thoughts (Simon, 1994). The regulation of speaker selection is a way in which schools can regulate the thoughts expressed at their annual commencement. This way they ensure a connection between the speaker and the purpose of the institution.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, the freedom of expression requires the tolerance of "ideas we hate." Arguably, hate speech has no place in a civilized society; however, if it has one place, it is within the system of higher education because that is where it is most likely to be changed. What better place exists to seek knowledge and understanding of this problem than at a university?

The issue of conflict emerges before students set foot on the college green. The challenge here is to raise students who are not hateful and who value diversity. While some students come from very homogenous environments, this does not directly translate into closed-mindedness. Universities should aim to promote diversity, civility and free speech. Colleges and universities should stress education. This includes the creation and amelioration of academic courses and extra-curricular experiences engineered to develop student understanding and to dissuade offensive or prejudiced speech or behavior.

There is no doubt that hate speech is damaging. Hate speech is an expression of discriminatory attitudes that have a long, ugly, and sometimes violent history. As such, hate speech is deeply offensive to its victims and socially divisive (Gates, 1993). While one might be reluctant to restrict speech, it might seem that the correct response to hate speech, as with other forms of discrimination, is regulation. The role of the college or university, though arduous, should be to carefully find the balance between the expression of opinion and offensive speech. This of course could prove circuitous in nature as interpretation of speech is often subjective. Moreover, some would ask if the regulation of hate speech can be justified as a matter of political morality.

Institutions should relate their codes of conduct to their mission. An institution of higher learning fails to fulfill its mission if it asserts the power to proscribe ideas -- and racial slurs, sexist epithets, or homophobic insults almost always express personal thoughts and ideas, however heinous. Further, by proscribing any ideas, a university overpoweringly disserves its academic mission (Simon, 1994). Neutrality challenges nobody and is a false reality. Colleges and universities should aim to replicate the world which they aim to represent or else, once again, they provide a disservice to their students. Missions often include promoting student independence and responsibility. Universities should not be held responsible for the individual actions of their students. Inevitably it is the student who is ultimately responsible for their own actions. If universities are to be held liable for every action which occurs on their grounds, then students and members of the community are then exonerated of their individual responsibility, qualities which universities often take pride in establishing in their students.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=151552&forum_id=1#2361864)