The debate over the introduction of speech codes in colleges and universities has been lasting for decades and has become even more vibrant in the present day because racial minorities, who have distinct lifestyles, values, and views, are growing in number and peaceful cohabitation of different groups is nowadays a challenging issue. Higher education institutions in the United States have different speech policies, but the similarity of hate speech complaints forces many colleges and universities to adopt and enforce elaborated speech codes. The present paper argues that the regulations of speech and expression on campus should not be adopted and enforced in colleges and universities.
First of all, public colleges and universities should not practice speech codes, as they are expected to embrace the freedom of speech and diversity of attitudes and expressions as a value inherent to and endorsed in the American society. As Smolla writes, “Freedom of speech is a core American belief, almost a kind of secular religious tenet […]” (Smolla, p.358). Free speech is society’s powerful weapon against corrupt governmental policies, incompetent or immoral politicians and cruel or illegitimate methods of law enforcement. Furthermore, according to Smolla, free speech guarantees that initiatives coming directly from the population (rather than from people’s representatives in the Congress) will be heard and taken into consideration: “On a communal level, free speech facilitates majority rule. It is through talking that we encourage consensus, that we form a collective will” (Smolla, p.358). Americans are entitled to demonstrate their positions in many different ways, including the destruction of a cross or national flag, harsh public criticism of government officials, and the use of erotic materials. Colleges and universities cannot be viewed as sovereign entities and cannot be separated from the broader society, so the model of attitude towards and execution of free speech should be reproduced in higher education institutions. The right to free speech is essentially protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as several laws and Supreme Court verdicts, which regulate the functioning of all government-run institutions including public colleges and universities.
Furthermore, it needs to be admitted that the boundary between the norm and deviance in terms of speech can be hardly formulated clearly, so speech codes are extremely ambiguous. In particular, the three speech issues to which most universities pay attention are “fighting words”, “racial harassment” and discriminatory harassment” (Golding, p.363). The first group of expressions is defined as words and phrases causing violence and leading to the development of a hostile environment. However, due to the diversity of behavioral patterns, the same phrase can cause one person to begin a fight and another person to laugh. Furthermore, emotional trauma is a condition that appears depending on the person’s sensitiveness rather than on the irritants of the environment. As for the “discrimination” clause, each person might feel discriminated if rejected by peers, but this supposed mistreatment can result directly from this person’s deeds or simply lack mutual understanding. As Clark notes, the three conditions of restricting expression are subjectivist by nature (Clark, p.380). In this sense, several classroom conflicts originated from the dissimilar perception of the idea of harassment For example, the instructor who referred to “Native Americans” as “Indians” believed his speech was not offensive, whereas his students classified it as racial harassment. Similarly, the lecturer who addressed African Americans as ex-slaves did not mean to abuse the dignity of his students and did not think his language was abusive, but the learners felt offended (Golding, p.365).
Finally, it needs to be admitted that the introduction of speech codes does not create an environment “sterile” from overt hostility among students or between learners and teachers. When the relationship between two persons (or two groups) is characterized by hatred, they will always find a way and appropriate means to hurt one another. Such regulations of speech in the campus settings are not likely to safeguard learners from being annoyed or offended by others; as it has been noted above, individuals are sensitive in different ways and each person has distinct ideas of what can abuse their dignity as well as distinct response patterns. In particular, it is impossible to regulate body language including voice tone and slight gestures, whereas the arrogant tone, ironic smile, or indifferent face expression might appear to be even more unpleasant than harassing words and make the recipient feel discriminated.
However, the specified approach to speech codes has one significant exception, or qualifier, which is verbal violence, which should be prevented and severely punished. In particular, if a student manages to prove that his/her mates had been consistently exposing his/her to verbal violence (abusive or harassing speech), which resulted in a specific medical condition (e.g. stress, depression, suicide attempt), then college or university administrators are expected to accuse the perpetrators of verbal harassment which caused emotional suffering or trauma.
As one can conclude, speech codes are not the most constructive way of creating a harmonious learning atmosphere in campus settings. Speech codes contravene with the American value and constitutional right to free speech, fail to establish clear and understandable rules of “right speech” and are not likely to solve the problem of enmity in the student population.
Works cited
Smolla, R. Speech Overview, pp. 356-361.
Golding , M. Campus Speech Issues, pp.361-372.
Clark, Q. Speech Codes: An Insult to Education and a Threat to Our Future, pp.378-383.