Should colleges limit 'hurtful' speech?

Image by The Georgetown Voice

By Molly Sullivan

While the majority of U.S. college students feel secure in their First Amendment rights, many students still think universities should restrict some kinds of speech, according to a recent Gallup survey.

After surveying 3,072 college students, the study found that students often have conflicting views regarding how First Amendment rights should be exercised when creating a free but safe learning environment.

Seventy-eight percent of students surveyed said colleges should ensure learning environments that expose the student body to different points of view. Conversely, 22 percent think universities should limit biased or offensive speech against certain groups.

Thus, “despite college students’ clear preference for an open environment, they are willing to restrict some speech — particularly speech that intentionally seeks to hurt or offend,” the study explained.

Seve Christian, the Trans Program Coordinator at the Gender and Sexuality Equity Center at Chico State, agrees with the 22 percent. He said that an inclusive learning environment is important and that discriminatory speech should be limited in a university setting.

“I think we do need to monitor what goes in and out of people’s mouths,” he said. “Words do hurt and end up being very triggering for some people. I think that there do need to be some limitations regarding what is said in keeping up to date with current language.”

The study shows that many students agree. Specifically, 69 percent of students who took the Gallup survey think universities should have policies that restrict slurs and intentionally offensive language, and 63 percent think that costumes that stereotype racial or ethnic groups should be limited.

Gallup researchers concluded that students are aware of the impact of racially and ethnically discriminatory language and think universities should create policies to curtail it.

“If you’re on campus, I agree, racial slurs shouldn’t be allowed, just for the fact that our campus should be a safe place,” said Adam Truman, a Chico State sophomore business major and radio show host at the campus radio station. “There’s definitely a direct relation between racism and harming others.”

Samuel Akinwande, the Black Programs intern at the Cross Cultural Leadership Center, said he thinks racial slurs have the potential to spark violence and create a safety issue on campus.

“As humans, we can’t help but be emotional creatures, and when we start acting out on our emotions, that starts a war, that starts a violent protest, so that’s why I’m saying yes, (racial slurs) need to be restricted.”

University administrators are aware of this growing trend and are taking steps to squelch discriminatory language on public campuses.

Last year, University of California President Janet Napolitano invited faculty to participate in a seminar focused on addressing language issues known as microaggressions. Microaggressions are subtle but offensive comments. The seminar included tools that outlined examples of microaggressions and how they can convey implicit biases. These tools have since been disseminated throughout the 10 UC campuses.

Many UC campuses have also changed their speech codes to include policies on bias and hate speech, and they encourage students to be aware of microaggressions.

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the speech codes at UC Berkeley include a provision for students to report an incident of biased speech to the university police.

The punishments for these incidents are vague and varying.

Steven Sherlock, a Chico State political science professor who specializes in civil liberties, thinks formal sanctions and punishments for speech is an overreach of the university.

“If a university actually punished a student for (the content of their speech or wearing an offensive costume), I think that would be beyond the pale, that would be going much too far,” he said.

Sherlock explained that the difficulty lies in writing the law and expanding the prohibitions beyond the four defined categories of unprotected speech: fighting words, dangerous words, defamation and obscenity.

“How do we define ‘hate’ and ‘intent’?” Sherlock asked. “This is where it gets really, really messy. If it’s vague, it’s challengeable. It’s void at least from a constitutional perspective.”

So, he said, without specific parameters, it is difficult for universities to craft and enforce new categories of unprotected speech.

Deanna Jarquin, Associated Student president, attributes the changing climate on college campuses to the shifting social view of students.

“Society, even more so, societies on college campuses just hold people to higher standards when it comes to their behavior, and their actions and their words,” she said. “It’s the college’s duty to provide opportunities for where people who have historically felt marginalized to express their viewpoints, which I think is what colleges do."

"When it comes to freedom of speech, I don’t think it’s the college telling us what we can’t say, I think it’s our peers,” Jarquin said.