Speech Codes Threaten The Free Exchange Of Ideas On College Campuses

In the debate over whether speech codes should be enforced or not on university campuses, the opponents conclude that university’s should not enforce a hate speech code because it impedes academic freedom. On the other side of the debate, the supporters conclude that it is a university’s responsibility to enforce hate speech code for an equal education opportunity. In this essay, I will conclude that hate speech should be regulated by a code enforced by the university because of the protection it offers. In the article titled, “Speech Codes Threaten the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses” Eugene Volokh concludes that colleges should enforce a speech code. One of his reasons is that a speech code undermines academic freedom in the
One of his reasons is for academic freedom for the minorities. Another reason of Lawrence’s for his argument is the “resurgence of racial violence…verbal and symbolic assault” resulting in an increase of hate speech harassment on university campuses. As a result, individuals who are considered a part of a minority group are victimized by speech due to their sexual orientation, race, gender or religion making them “second-class citizens”. According to Lawrence, university officials that have already created a speech code have protected only incidents of face-to-face insults. However, hate speech encompasses not only face-to-face insults, but “catcalls” and “other assaultive speech aimed at an individual or group of persons” which happens to be the exception to First Amendment protection. Another reason for his conclusion is that having a speech code enforced gives the opportunity for minorities for “safe passage in all common areas” on campus. He supports the reason claiming that a minority student should not risk becoming a target of hate speech when “he or she chooses to walk across campus”. He goes on with another reason that since “otherwise protected speech” is allowed when it occurs in the “privacy of the unwilling listener’s home”. He reasons that then certainly on a university campus
I believe there should be hate speech codes because an incident of verbal/racial harassment on a college campus may lead to a hate crime. For instance, Daniel Vessal, a Jewish student at Temple University was mocked by being called a “baby killer” and a “Zionist pig” after he was courteously discussing Hamas with students that represented a group called Students for Justice in Palestine. Not only was he mocked, he was punched in the face by one of the students. After Vessal was punched he was then called a “kike”. (Temple Univ. Jewish Student Punched In Face And Called ‘Kike’ In Anti-Semitic Attack, Mael). Another reason why I support Lawrence’s argument is his reason that speech should be regulated not just in verbal form, but in the forms of fliers, posters and graffiti. I further his case that media forms should not only be controlled in common areas, but at any location on campus since there is evidence of where hateful media was discovered. For example, Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexualtiy, an anti-gay organization was passing out anti-gay propaganda at the University of Regina (Anti-Gay Hate Group Runs Into Trouble on Two Campuses). In another incident, white supremacist fliers were put on cars which happened at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and St. Norbert's College (No Penalty For Racist Flyers Targeting Colleges, George).