Campus rules overreach

Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, several students at Shippensburg (Pa.) University put up posters in their dorms depicting Osama bin Laden in a rifle's crosshairs. But school officials ordered the posters removed. The students said they were told the signs might offend other dorm residents.

In response to that bit of political correctness run amok, a group representing the students sued the university, claiming its code of student conduct limits free speech. A federal judge agreed. Last week, the school revised its code, which had banned "any unwanted conduct which annoys, demeans or alarms."

The case illustrates how colleges' efforts to promote campus harmony can violate constitutional rights to free expression by squelching all but the most bland and conformist comments. While some views may be offensive, the best way to confront them is by encouraging open dialogue, not giving veto power to those most easily offended.

Yet, many colleges still prohibit provocative speech protected by the First Amendment, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which sued Shippensburg and other colleges that attempted to censor debate.

Examples of campus restrictions the group has challenged:

• Officials at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, University of Colorado and University of California at Irvine prevented some students from holding bake sales with discount prices for minority students as satirical protests of affirmative-action policies. They relented after FIRE threatened to sue.

• Last year, Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash., took disciplinary action against a student group that posted fliers about a speech by the author of the book Why the Left Hates America. Offended students and administrators had complained that the title could be considered a form of hate speech. Gonzaga reversed itself after FIRE protested.

• A writing instructor at Forsyth Technical Community College in Winston-Salem, N.C., claims she was let go last year after criticizing the Iraq war during a class. FIRE is working to have her reinstated.

Some universities argue that speech codes are needed to comply with federal rules that ban sexual or racial harassment. But the head of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights says the regulations don't "impair the exercise of rights protected under the First Amendment." The rules are intended to protect students from discrimination, not regulate speech, he said.

Encouraging students to show sensitivity to others is laudable, but it's better achieved through persuasion than coercion of those who express disagreeable views. After all, a free exchange of ideas is supposed to be an integral part of the college experience.

Universities can support civility without tearing down posters or limiting speech. Free expression will make some uncomfortable, but that's not sufficient reason to block it within the ivy-covered walls of academia.

Hate cannot be tolerated
By Richard Delgado
Anonymous vandals scrawl hate-filled graffiti outside a Jewish student center. Black students at a law school find unsigned fliers stuffed inside their lockers screaming that they do not belong there. At a third campus, a group of toughs hurls epithets at a young Latino student walking home late at night.
In response to a rising tide of such incidents, some colleges have enacted hate-speech codes or applied existing rules against individuals whose conduct interferes with the educational opportunities of others. Federal courts have extended "hostile environment" case law to schools that tolerate a climate of hate for women and students of color.

Despite the alarm these measures sometimes elicit, nothing is wrong with them. In each case, the usual and preferred response — "more speech" — is unavailable to the victim. With anonymous hate speech such as the flier or graffiti, the victim cannot talk back, for the hate speaker delivers his message in a cowardly fashion. And talking back to aggressors is rarely an option. Indeed, many hate crimes began just this way: The victim talked back — and paid with his life.

Hate speech is rarely an invitation to a conversation. More like a slap in the face, it reviles and silences. College counselors report that campuses where highly publicized incidents of hate speech have taken place show a decline in minority enrollment as students of color instead choose to attend schools where the environment is healthier.

A few federal courts have declared overly broad hate-speech codes unconstitutional, as well they should. Nothing is gained by a rule so broad it could be construed as forbidding the discussion of controversial subjects such as evolution or affirmative action.

But this is not what most people mean by hate speech, nor are colleges barred from drafting narrow rules that hone in on the conduct they wish to control. And when they do, courts are very likely to find in their favor. Recent Supreme Court rulings striking down laws that ban sodomy, upholding affirmative action and approving punishment for cross-burning show that the court is not unaware of current trends. Society is becoming more diverse. Reasonable rules aimed at accommodating that diversity and regulating the conduct of bullies and bigots are to be applauded — not feared.

Richard Delgado is a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and author of Understanding Words that Wound ( 2004).