Understanding Three Campus Incidents in the U.S. Where Hate Speech Has Been an Issue Essay Example

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 facedin 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 slur such as being called a "nigger," where it's automatically receiving a slap to the face where the injury is instantaneous. There's no opportunity for any type of educated responsive speech. His idea is that when hate speech is not used to express one's mind to engage in conversation, its only purpose is to engage with fists, and that is where he proposes we draw the line. Where the hate speech is not aimed anything else but violence, we should not protect it under our freedoms of speech. Richard Delgado and David H. Yun are also law professors who are for the regulations of campus hate speech.

They argue the main arguments against any restrictions on speech and dismiss all as paternalistic. In one of the arguments they challenge hateful racist speech referring to it as the "pressure valve" argument. The argument states that much like a pressure valve, if a racist is forced to bottle up their hate and is held back from saying his or her racist remarks, then they will be more likely to do something hurtful later such as cause physical harm, just like how a pressure valve can blow. They challenge this argument saying that there is psychological evidence which suggests that even if you let one person say or do what they want to express their hateful feelings, it will only increase the chance that they'll do it again in the future.

Humans are more complex than things and we cannot be compared. The topic of speech regulation draws the same amount of attention from the people against it as there

are for it. Timothy C. Shiell is a professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin that is against the regulation of speech on campus. He argues that you shouldn't regulate speech but regulate what he calls action or conduct that is "targeted, intentional, repeated verbal abuse." He says that by the regulation of speech, it will distort the greater equality upon Americans. He wants universities to design policies that will focus more on a student's conduct and not their speech.

Students should be more tolerant of other race, religions, and cultures including their ideas. He believes that universities should educate the students with tolerance to where hate isn't an issue, where we can all see each other the same.Henry Louis Gates Jr. is another professor who is against the regulation of free speech. He argues that the "fighting words" which The Supreme Court decided to exclude under the first amendment is a bad law that has never even been used in the last fifty years. He also states that minorities are the ones that are actually more likely to use profanity and therefore the ones more likely to be convicted for hate speech.

The speech code regulations are actually hurting them more than anyone. He says that the problem with speech codes is that from the regulations, you can't tell if racist speech hurts more to someone who is fat, skinny, ugly, pretty, or let alone minorities. Also speech codes stop educational discussion. If in a classroom where one is scared to speak up with his or her opinion because of the consequences that might follow, the education is limited. He brings up

the example of a student voicing their opinion that homosexuality is a disease inside of a classroom and getting punished for it. Gates says that it closes the horizon to more education in the classroom.

A third professor that is against the regulations of speech is Franklyn S. Haiman. Haiman is a retired professor of communications at Northwestern University that believes the distinction between words and actions is important. Words of hatred can be uttered or symbols and are displayed, while acts of racial ethnic religious or sexual discrimination or physical abuse are different.

He challenges Lawrence's "slap in the face" analogy stating that its not actually a slap in the face, but is only taken as one if the person decides to. He says that there is time to reflect, and it is up to the person whether or not they want to answer with fists. He also brings upon his own argument referred to as the "forbidden fruit" argument. In this argument he claims that just like Adam was forbidden the fruit of knowledge, when we are exposed to censorship and forbidden to see or hear things, we only want to see or hear them more, and thus will find a way to do so. He's saying that it's better off to allow us to hear, see, or do what we want because it is in mankind's nature to find a way to do what's forbidden to us anyways.Learning a brief history of hate speech seen on campuses, I tend to fall back and forth between where I stand on campus speech regulations.

I think it is important for students to speak their

minds and voice their opinions, but I also think it is important to regulate what is heard and said because it might be hurtful to others. Ultimately, I think speech regulation should pass on campuses because there needs to be some type of authority on what is said. I think there is a fine line between free speech and hate speech and that line needs to be seen bold by everyone. Freedom of speech is one thing, and hate speech is another. People should be allowed to say what they want when there is a positive outlook, not one to put others down or that will provoke more negativity such as violence.