The Dialogue

Question: Do hate speech codes have a chilling effect on academic discourse on our nation's campuses?

Yes, speech codes run counter to the tradition of liberal arts education.
Bob Fitrakis *

At his famous free speech trial in Canton, Ohio during World War I, labor leader Eugene Victor Debs told the jury, "I would not gag the lips of my bitterest enemy."

This same sentiment should be embodied in every institute of higher education. The free, vigorous, and open exchange of ideas must be the purpose of our colleges and universities.

The role of the college is neither to interpret law nor prosecute its own learners. The Supreme Court has long held that certain types of speech are not protected by the Constitution. Personally directed fighting words and slander are perhaps the two most notable examples. Speech codes aren't necessary.

It's inevitable, in a multicultural society with an institutionally racist past, that learners will bring into the college environment the baggage of their socialization. Our job as educators is not to persecute them or shame them or flunk them because they don't know the rules of discourse in the academy.

At the community college where I teach, occasionally a student will utter an offensive and derogatory term. Can such terms create a hostile setting for learners who are offended or targets of the slur? Surely. But these incidents also create the legendary teachable moment we hear so much about.

It's the job of the educator to probe the student that utters these phrases and engage the whole class in dialogue as to why such terms are unacceptable.

Allowing administrators or states to stifle free speech will ultimately destroy the last open institutions in our society.

* Bob Fitrakis is an associate professor of political science at Columbus State Community College in Ohio.

No, eliminating hate speech and protecting free speech are not inconsistent.
Gerald A. Notaro *

Granted, the issue of hate speech/free speech is not an easy one. Abortion, women's rights, and death penalty issues are much clearer.

Speech codes make us wince a bit. Both free speech traditionalists and speech code advocates are uncomfortable with at least some aspects of their own beliefs.

Are we really convinced that burning a cross on an African-American family's front porch is free speech? Does academic free inquiry include Web sites extolling the virtues of Matthew Shepard's murder?

There has never been absolute free speech in our schools. We accept limits to protect intellectual property, copyright, privacy, and administrative secrets and to discourage plagiarism, libel, threats, and disrespect. Absolute free speech did not end slavery. It certainly did not protect civil rights activists who tried to exercise freedom of speech in the South.

While speech codes vary, most condemn speech or expression that vilify, insult, victimize, stigmatize, or incite violence against a person or group based on their sex, race, creed, or sexual orientation.

Hate speech codes do not affect the ranting of the Ku Klux Klan in a shopping mall, where no one is required to attend, but these speech codes do protect our students, staff, and faculty. Provocative and challenging discourse does not need to include racist attacks, hate, or bigotry.

Speech codes reflect an administrative responsibility to provide a safe, non-hostile, and diverse educational setting.

* Gerald A. Notaro is university librarian at the University of South Florida and a board member of Pinnelas County ACLU.

Share your viewpoint on our discussion page.