Hate speech is a relative new topic in discussions about First Amendment rights in the United States. For years many words and actions have always been protected by freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In 1942, a Jehovah’s Witness named Walter Chaplinsky was arrested for disturbing the peace because he had made derogatory comments to the local police officials. His appeal before the US Supreme Court was overturned because the court felt that his words were, "likely to provoke the average person to retaliate." (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942) (Feingold/Hentoff, 202)
The history of free speech is wide and varied. In 1989, in the US Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson, the court ruled that flag burning was protected by the First Amendment as a form of symbolic speech. (Feingold/Hentoff, 202) Where do these court cases and the First Amendment put us today in terms of free speech? One of the main battlegrounds for this feud is on the nation’s college campuses.
In this pivotal debate, left-wing orthodox liberals have been pitted against conservatives. The liberals fiercely believe that minority groups and women must be protected on college campuses. They believe this because they feel that all minorities must be guaranteed to have equal opportunity of an education free from racism and intimidating environments. I believe that political correctness is a misnomer for what could be called decency and humaneness in public address. There should be no controls placed on public speech, even when it represents "hate" as the primary message being conveyed. Stanford University President, Donald Kennedy states that when your start telling people what they can’t say, you will end up telling them what they can’t think. (Feingold/ Hentoff, 204)
There are many problems included in the debate on speech codes on college campuses. Who should or should not be protected? What words or names are acceptable and what is considered offensive? Even on campuses which already have speech codes there is a fine line between what is considered offensive and of breaking a code. I am familiar with a particular case of "hateful" speech on this campus. Two girls who shared a dormitory on South Green had been at odds with each other for quite some time. After a heated argument one night the girl named "Jen" left a note on "Holly’s" desk. The note simply read, "Holly, you are a fucking Jew bitch!" "Holly" later took the note to judiciaries. After a lengthy procedure, the judiciaries decided to put "Jen" on probation for three quarters. While I believe that no action should have been taken, it was possible that "Jen" could have been suspended or even expelled from the University. In a rage of anger, "Jen" wrote something she regrets today. What good would it have done to ruin her life by expelling her from school for a momentary lapse in civility and logical thinking.
I do not consider myself to be a minority or part of a minority group but I am Jewish. I have never really identified with Judaism, because my Father is Italian and Roman Catholic, while my mother is Jewish. My parents never brought me up in a religion. Having an Italian last name friends and others always identify me as Italian. Although I have had nicknames such as "pizza-bagel" and "matzoh-ball" I never really take offense to these racial nicknames. Usually they are all in good fun because the nicknames are given to me by friends. While I have encountered Jewish racial epitaphs a time or two in my life, I take no offense. The words might hurt for awhile, but in the end I know the person who used the words is probably ignorant and uneducated.
Gwen Thomas, a black community college administrator from Colorado, is known as a staunch exposer of racial discrimination. Thomas stated in a panel on hate speech codes, " [a]s for providing a non-intimidating educational environment, our young people have to learn to grow up on college campuses. We have to teach them how to deal with adversarial situations. They have to learn how to survive offensive speech they find wounding and hurtful." (Feingold/Hentoff, 209)
The line of political correctness is a difficult one to draw. What is p.c. to one student is not necessarily p.c. to another student, what is p.c. to one member of a minority group is not p.c. to another member of that same group. At a recent Harvard Law School debate on speech codes, as white student rose and said that black students must be protected from offensive speech or they would be deterred from attending colleges and lose out on equal opportunities. A black law student rose and stated that the white student, ". . . had a hell of a nerve to assume that he -- in the face of racist speech-- would pack up his books and go home." The black student had dealt with offensive speech his whole life and would not need to be protected from hurtful speech now. "It is more racist and insulting, to say that to me than to call me a nigger." (Feingold/Hentoff, pg.204)
Janette Muir’s essay on anti-abortion violence and the rhetorical extremism contained in the movement sets forth many good arguments to ponder. She begins by stating that while hate is immoral, some people believe they hate for good, moral reasons. (Muir, 163) Expressions of hate differ and the level of action is an important tool to anti-abortion protesters, and has come under fir, not only in context of the abortion issue, but also in the first amendment debate. Terrorizing doctors and murder are some of the dark sides of this movement. The anti-abortion groups use names, such as "The Lambs of Christ," to identify themselves as doing God’s bidding, even thought these people are no more than criminals and terrorist. These groups although fed up with the status quo, must learn to work within the framework of the law. Words and rhetoric used in the anti-abortion issue are accepted and listened to by the mainstream population. Violence, murder and terror are tools that will only turn mainstream supporters away from these fringe groups.
David Whillock’s essay is fascinating in connection with and in the context of hate and hate speech. While Whillock documents postmodern uses of symbols to represent hate, one can overlay these themes to today. The phrase a picture is worth a thousand words is extremely pertinent with "hate" symbols. For the Nazi’s the swastika represented not only the state government, but also the hatred towards Jews and communists. Today, while it can be possible to censor certain kinds of speech it is more difficult to censor many symbols and pictures of hatred.
The First Amendment and protecting free speech are undeniably important. I do not believe that any restrictions should be put on free speech. Americans should be able to voice their opinions without fear of prosecution or retribution. College campuses are a place where students should have no fear of speaking freely. Students should not have to stay clear of race or other important divisive topics. Students should not have to worry about how they refer to their classmates. I’m still not sure if I should say African-American or black, should I say Hispanic, Chicano, or Mexican-American. I used to worry about these things, but I don’t worry about trying to be p.c. anymore. While college speech codes are a critical debate the anti-abortion movement is an example of "hateful" rhetoric taken to an extreme. A balance and definition must be created and understood in the context of free speech and rhetoric.
Bibliography
Feingold, Stanley. Mckenna George. Taking Sides:Clashing Views on Controversial Political Issues. The Dushkin Publishing Group. Guildford, Conneticut. copy 1993.