Campus Speech Regulations

Under the first amendment, all Americans have the right to speak their minds. It is a right that allows us to do so much, a right that we all hold dear, freedom of speech. However, freedom of speech has become a very controversial issue. With America’s population and racial diversity steadily rising, it’s not uncommon for minority groups all over to experience hate speech in some way or form. What should and should not be protected under the first amendment? Should the right to freedom of speech allow anyone and everyone to fully express themselves even if they only want to express hate? Where do we ultimately draw the line between free speech and hate speech? Those are the questions that are being asked by school administrators where campus hate speech has brought attention. Understanding three campus incidents where hate speech has been an issue in the past might help shine some light which side we should pick.

One incident at the University of Pennsylvania occurred between a Jewish male and a group of African American sorority girls late one night. Eighteen-year-old freshman Mr. Jacobowitz, was trying to write an English paper around midnight when he looked outside of his sixth floor high rise dorm room and saw about a dozen black sorority women making loud noises and causing a disturbance outside. After hearing the noise for about 20 minutes, Jacobowitz decided to shout out the window “Shut up you water buffalo!” This incident grabbed so much attention from the group of girls whom it was directed to because it was immediately taken as a racist remark. Mr. Joacobwitz also added by asking “if you’re looking for a party, there’s a zoo a mile from here.” The groups of girls were furious by Joacobwitz remarks of them, commenting on their skin color and calling them animals. In his defense, he argued that “water buffalo” is a direct translation from a Hebrew word used to scold others and was mistakenly taken as a racist remark. The school took this into their hands and the inquiry office suggested that the case be settled by Joacobwitz offer an apology to the women for his racial harassment. In addition, he would also be put on dormitory probation that would risk him being evicted upon any further violation. The argument in the story lies on the correct action that should have been taken upon Mr. Joacobwitz and the punishment(s) he should have faced

In another incident that happened here on campus at the University of California Riverside, Phi Kappa Sigma a fraternity on campus was punished for controversial t-shirt members wore. School officials didn’t agree with the fraternity’s t-shirt depicting two Mexicans on the beach with one holding a beer, and wanted to disband the fraternity chapter for three years. The fraternity t-shirt was said to be demeaning and was racist towards Mexicans. The UC Riverside fraternity later sued the school claiming that their free speech was being violated by not letting them wear shirts they had made. The debate focused on whether or not the fraternity should have consequences for a shirt they claim that was justified under the first amendment of freedom of speech or not. They were to be inactive for 3 years as punishment but instead took a stab back by suing the school. The court had the fraternity reinstated and the fraternity won.

A third case in which happened at the California Institute of Technology involved a couple and e-mails of harassment. Jinsong Hu, age 26, was a promising Caltech doctoral candidate who allegedly sent sexually harassing e-mails to his former girlfriend, Jiajun Wen. The emails landed Jinsong Hu six months of county jail time and he was ultimately expelled from Caltech. The incident raised new concerns about harassment in a digital age in a digital form and brought up the question, how do you govern cyberspace? Since forging email could be done so easily, why such a harsh punishment? Even in the Hu case, one of the harassing e-mails that were understood by school officials to be sent from Hu was actually even proved to have been a joke sent by a friend of Wen’s new boyfriend. The debate is whether or not his emails were sent by him, and if they were, could they really be considered harassment? Hu’s attorney stated his punishment was too harsh based on unencrypted e-mail. Hu was found not guilty in court, but his punishments and expulsion from the school were to follow.

So where should one stand on such a controversial topic like campus speech regulation? Mari J. Matsuda, a law professor at Georgetown University and author is strongly for the regulation of speech on college campuses. She argues that exposure to hate leaves “lasting impressions on university students” and can even do psychological harm. She states that this is a sensitive for younger students as they are transitioning, making new ties, and forming their identities. As if students don’t already have enough problems to worry about, things like financial uncertainty, academic uncertainty, self-doubt, inaccessible professors, large class lectures, etc. students shouldn’t have to worry about the burden of someone causing them “psychological assault.” She stresses the idea that students shouldn’t have to deal any harassment while already having to deal with all of the stress related problems that come along with school. Yet many students go through their everyday lives ignoring the hate. Pretending that they don’t see the swastikas, don’t hear the racist remarks, and don’t see the written threats, they just move on—but it hurts them. Maybe it’s their night sleep that gets hurt, or maybe they can’t pay attention to the lecture due to all of the distractions, but in one way or form, students are going to hurt from the hate and it’s not fair to them, says Matsuda.

Another professor for the regulation of speech on campuses is Charles R. Lawrence III. Lawrence argues that “face-to-face” insults are a form of assaultive speech, and when aimed at an individual or group, then it falls under “fighting words.” And since The Supreme Court has stated fighting words are words that “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” “face-to-face” hate should be unprotected by the first amendment as well. He says that racial insults, much like fighting words, are “undeserving” to be protected under the first amendment. Fighting words that give the verbal “slap in the face” should be regulated because they do no good other than provoking a fight. He gives the example of being called any racial