College
lessons on free speech
College
administrators often teach some interesting
lessons on free speech when it comes to
our campus community. We learn that it's
OK to oppress free speech if it offends
members of certain groups. Administrators
may defy the U.S. Constitution, the California
Constitution and California law, so long
as it's done in a quiet, creative and underhanded
fashion.
In
the late '80s and early '90s, the trend
on our nation's colleges was to enact codes
forbidding speech that seemed harmful to
minorities, homosexuals and women. The argument
for this curtail of free speech stemmed
from the idea that offensive speech may
constitute harassment, thereby inhibiting
a student's right to an education. Students
who belong to certain groups may become
so offended by certain words that they would
stop attending class. Banning such speech
was consistent with the 14th amendment,
which guarantees equal protection under
law.
Instead
of just punishing harassment, these speech
codes have often been used to curb speech
that was merely politically incorrect. From
satirical commentary on feminism to fliers
that were misinterpreted as racist, the
incidents embody a narrow-minded abuse of
power by the politically correct police.
In
response to the rise in speech codes, California
Legislature enacted the Leonard Law, which
was intended to protect public college campuses
from unconstitutional censorship. It says
that any speech that would be protected
by the U.S. and California constitutions
must be protected on publicly funded colleges.
Campus speech codes restricting offensive,
but not pervasively harassing expression
are illegal in our state.
But
that wasn't the end of the free speech battle
on our state campuses. These codes have
reincarnated into a more insidious form,
under guises such as "statement of
diversity," "harassment policies"
and "principles of a shared community."
They codify civility and responsibility
to the point of forced morality. They say
that offensive speech is not only wrong,
but it will get you in trouble with the
dean.
These
codes were defended by the argument that
it's OK to suppress speech protected by
the First Amendment if said speech conflicts
with the 14th Amendment, which guarantees
equal protection under law. Administrators
gave the impression that, when they restricted
offensive speech, they were only trying
to uphold federal regulations banning racial
and sexual harassment on college campuses.
But recently, the United States Department
of Education Office for Civil Rights issued
a letter that should put that argument to
rest.
In
the letter, Assistant Secretary Gerald A.
Reynolds states, "I want to assure
you in the clearest possible terms that
OCR's regulations are not intended to restrict
the exercise of any expressive activities
protected under the U.S. Constitution."
But
this letter from the Department of Education,
like the U.S. Constitution, the California
Constitution and the Leonard Law, does no
good if campus administrators pretend to
prosecute offending students under some
other rule. They often use rules restricting
the time, place and manner of speech, which
is fine, so long as they are neutral about
the kind of speech they restrict. The problem
is, these rules often remain dormant until
some expression of speech offends a certain
cultural, homosexual or feminist group.
At
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, a recent incident
regarding perceived racism was prosecuted
under a rule that was unrelated to harassment.
The full story is on the Web site for The
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
at http://www.thefire.org.
Steve
Hinkle was cited for posting a flier that
was perceived as, but not intended to be,
racist towards blacks. Hinkle had quietly
posted a flier while others were holding
and unofficial bible study. The students
told him to take the flier elsewhere and
when he refused, they called the police.
Even though the bible study students admitted
that Hinkle had remained civil throughout
the incident, he was prosecuted for being
"disruptive," and his record was
besmirched.
After
reading transcripts from Hinkle's hearing,
it is clear that the problem was not disruption,
but rather the nature of the flier. The
informal meeting was "disrupted"
not by Hinkle's actions, but by the students'
own reactions to the posting.
Cal
Poly SLO effectively taught these students
if you're offended, you should complain.
Even though offensive speech is protected,
there is some way to effectively punish
the offender. They also teach that you'd
better think twice before posting anything
controversial.
In
another case, San Diego State's satirical
newspaper The Koala was targeted for a piece
that offended Muslims. In that case, similar
measures were taken, in which administrators
pretended that the satirical writers had
broken another rule, and therefore they
could take away funding for the paper. This
case is still going on, and can be followed
by logging onto the Web site for the Student
Press Law Center at http://www.splc.org.
Campus
administrators continue to abridge the right
to free speech in colleges all across the
country. But that abridgement is especially
onerous when it happens in California, where
we have the Leonard Law. Fortunately, there
are organizations such as The Foundation
for Individual Rights and Education and
the Student Press Law Center that exist
to help protect our rights to free speech
on campus. But they won't do all the work
for us. As students, our obligation is to
keep a vigilant watch over such abuses of
power by the intolerance of politically
correct fascism.
|
