Banning Hate Speech

CBC Must Provide an Equal Learning Environment for All Students In response to a rise in crimes against minorities, college and Universities in the 80’s and 90’s began to enact speech codes in order to protect and provide equality for all their students. Some people labeled these actions as a response to political correctness, however hate speech was real, and college administrators had a responsibility to their students. Since then, the debate over hate speech has grown not just on college campuses but throughout the United States, with the greatest concern coming from those who fear that the First Amendment is being sacrificed in the name of diversity and equality. With 60% of the 355 colleges and universities banning hate speech on campus,
Prior to the 1930’s speech was not as protected as it is today (Bell, 968). This is a freedom that many take for granted or spend very little time thinking about. While it would be easy to say that banning hate speech would clearly take away the freedom of speech, the truth is banning hate speech would actually provide opportunities for more people to enjoy free speech. According to Bell’s article in the Indiana Law Journal, minorities who are subjected to hate speech are more likely to avoid those situations whether it involves their place of work, home or public environment (966). They are not engaging in discussion like opponents of banning hate speech suggest, there is a clear understanding that this situation is not safe and must be avoided. While some would contend that hate speech is simply, spoken words that some find offensive, Stephen Newman, in Liberty, Community and Censorship, describes hate speech as words that heighten prejudice, and intimidate specific people (375). Even the Supreme Court does not always agree on the defining lines of hate speech. Erik Bleich in his article the Rise of Hate Speech lists several court cases that have helped to define the law in regards to hate speech. These cases include Chaplinsky V. New Hampshire, which introduced the term “fighting words”, Biauharnais V. Illinois, this case involved printed materials, and the case quoted in every article RAV v. City of
As was previously stated in this paper over 60% have already enacted speech codes in spite of the controversy. Some concerns over these speech codes arise when we look at the very reason as to why they are necessary. Over and over again hate speech, not just offense, is followed by violent action. Sometimes the very words that are spoken can cause the recipient to recoil as if they have been physically harmed. This is the kind of hate speech that must be stopped. Opponents of hate speech may have valid concerns over speech codes, however their concerns are much easier to address then the violent speech and actions that minorities face on campus daily. Let’s examine some of the concerns raised by author Greg Lukianoff in Unlearning Liberty, throughout his book he brings up concerns such as, who is deciding what is considered hate speech, are we creating an environment of students to afraid to speak and what about due process? All of these concerns are valid and while there have been issues with administrators forwarding their own agenda and a lack of education regarding students’ rights, the point that probably contains the most weight would be the lack of due process. In his book he lists several cases where students were punished or even expelled without the opportunity to defend themselves. While the examples in his book are terrible these cases should motivate administrators to examine their