“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Although a common saying, it is understood that words can in fact hurt a person. So many famous people in history have used words to initiate movements, instill change, communicate emotion, and express themselves because of the enormous impact words can have. The freedom of the press, along with the freedom of speech, creates a means by which change can be made by the people, for the people. After all, the freedom of speech is a core principle upon which the United States of America is founded. Many movements in history would not have happened if it had not been for a person or persons who had stepped up and spoken for or against a cause. Words are a big part of our lives. We absorb many forms of media, from which we interpret and make decisions, and filter through countless types of communication in a given day without realizing it. Perception plays a key role in how we interpret this communication, and sometimes causes conflict to arise. Because conflict may arise in some instances, is that sufficient cause to limit certain freedoms of expression in order to protect potential victims? Although hate speech has its negative effects on university campuses, especially concerning the academic freedoms of students, hate speech codes should only be enacted for extreme cases, and the freedom of speech should be protected.
The university represents a significant part of the academic ladder in which it is a “marketplace of ideas” and a symbolic representation of academic freedom. The university, as described by Binghamton University, is “an institution that recognizes unfettered freedom in the give and take of ideas and opinions as an integral part of its mission.” Binghamton further states:
The ideal of the university as a marketplace of ideas must not, however, interfere with the equally important ideal of a university as a place where all people are respected, and where tolerance, rational discourse, thoughtfulness, and reason prevail over uncontrolled emotion and prejudice. In theory, the twin ideals of a university as a marketplace of ideas and as a community of scholarship should not conflict; in practice, however, they sometimes do.
These conflicting ideals are at the heart of the issue many universities face. The decision must be made which to value more: academic freedom or the freedom of speech.
In order to fully evaluate this conflict of freedoms, we must agree on what exactly “hate speech” means. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics describes hate speech as, “Discriminatory harassment [including] conduct (oral, written, graphic or physical) directed against any person or, group of persons because of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or veteran's status and that has the purpose or reasonably foreseeable effect of creating an offensive, demeaning, intimidating, or hostile environment for that person or group of persons.” This definition encompasses a large spectrum of situations, so it is understandable that hate speech is an issue on university campuses.
Many problems can arise from hate speech. In fact, statistics have shown that hate speech codes are on the rise.
There were approximately 75 hate speech codes in place at U.S. colleges and universities in 1990; by 1991, the number grew to over 300. School administrators institute codes primarily to foster productive learning environments in the face of rising racially motivated and other offensive incidents on many campuses. According to a recent study, reports of campus harassment increased 400 percent between 1985 and 1990. Moreover, 80 percent of campus harassment incidents go unreported. (Markkula)
With hate speech codes on the rise, it is especially important for us to weigh the importance of them. Whether hate speech codes are morally just responses to university campus intolerance is determined by how society interprets the harms of such forms of harassment, the restriction of free speech, and the imbalance of individual and group rights (Markkula).
There are reasons why hate speech codes are created. Many times they are created in an effort to be “politically correct” and to be accepting of race, gender, and class-sensitive issues. Those who support hate speech codes believe that what the codes prevent is more important than the freedom they restrict (Markkula). Hate speech is symbolic of oppressive history of the targeted group and thus “plagues the harmed student and hinders his or her ability to compete fairly in the academic arena”(Markkula). Thus, if hate speech infringes upon a student’s ability to exercise his or her right to an education, hate speech codes are justified.
Hate speech codes fulfill the societal interests of a university’s population. A university is a key part of society and thus must act in the best interests of the greatest number of people to ensure safety and to achieve its mission of a healthy educational environment. When a person becomes a part of society, certain rights or freedoms may be restricted in return for safety and other societal benefits. Hate speech creates an unsafe environment for targeted groups or victims, and, as a result, reduces their ability to learn. Thus, hate speech codes are justified because they are in the best societal interests.
Further, hate speech codes create an ideal of a university: to teach rational argumentation. If speech codes were created, they would teach students how to rationally defend an opinion instead of depending on irrational, unproductive means of expression. In fact, the very use of hate speech has the intention of hurting and often provokes violence; “hate speech codes emphasize the need to support convictions with facts and reasoning while protecting the rights of potential victims”(Markkula).
But no one wants to inhibit genuine free speech or an open exchange of ideas. Ideally hate speech codes would be carefully made so as to avoid taking away from either free speech or academic freedom. However, when this hate speech causes its victims to lose academic freedom, this speech is no longer free speech. “Name-calling does not resemble or produce an open marketplace of ideas. Free play of ideas is not the same as a free-for-all of insults”(Edelstein). Most people will agree that we should show “greater sympathy to the needs and fears of all members of a changing university community,” but hope that this could be achieved through means other than codes (Edelstein).
Education could decrease the dependence on hate speech codes because it would teach people to think before speaking and to think of the effects their speech has on others. The use of education would increase awareness of individuals and broaden their perceptual sets. Increased awareness of differences and perceptual sets would cause a more hospitable and humane environment and would foster a continuing chain of generations that would become increasingly aware. Universities already play a role in regulating various types of behaviors and speech, including plagiarism, alcohol consumption, and residency (Edelstein). In many instances, society deems what is appropriate and decent. Thus, since the university plays many societal roles already, it should be able to set regulations on what is “decent” activity or behavior; this behavior includes hate speech.
To encourage more conscious, self-reflective, sensitive language and behavior is not to tyrannize. To advocate conscientiously constructed codes that address rare and egregious infractions of common decency and civility is not to call for a thought police. (Edelstein)
Hate speech should be prevented, but not always through the use of codes. Awareness should be the answer to preventing hate speech from occurring. However, not all forms of hate speech can be prevented.
By making hate speech codes, we are suppressing a pending issue that needs to be addressed. Hate speech codes are used as a “safety valve;” pressure build-up due to hate speech rises, and then is relieved by such speech codes. This use of codes as a “safety valve” is not a long-term act for change. After all, if one code is made, it is expected that other codes shall follow, and the endless cycle of protecting countless targeted groups continues. With creating countless codes, freedom of speech is being suppressed. Hate speech needs to be handled in such a way that freedom of speech is not undermined by academic freedom through use of speech codes; after all, academic freedom entails principles of freedom of expression.