So here is my final project. I have attached the maps to this post. If you would prefer to see it embeded in a word document and attached I can do that.

and don't forge to read the footnotes.

you'll notice there is no discussion or conclusion section.. I did that on purpose.

It was nice having class with y'all- I would love to recieve comments but the quarter is pretty much over so I understand...


Hate Speech Codes in the U.S: Freedom, Power, and Political Correctness on College Campuses

 

Introduction

It seems that there is not one freedom in the U.S. with as much popularity as the freedom of speech. Although the First Amendment has most often been protected in the courts, speech codes have been gaining popularity as well as notoriety since the late 1980’s (Uelmen sec 1). Speech codes, which are regulations made by a private businesses or public institutions restrict speech beyond legal restrictions such as libel, slander, harassment and “fighting words,” with a general intention to suppress hate speech (wikipedia.org). According to Gerald Uelmen, university speech codes rose sharply from 75 campus in the U.S. in 1990 to 300 in 1991 (Uelmen, sec 2). Naturally, a lively debate has surrounded speech codes and hate speech. This project briefly examines some of those debates.

The debate surrounding hate speech codes has been most lively in academe. In contrast, the media for the most part have not engaged as rigorously in the debate as academic circles. Instead, they dwelled on the question of what defines hate speech. Due to the plethora of academic information on the subject, and the lack thereof in the media and in the context of private business, this project focuses mainly on the controversy of hate speech regulation in the form of speech codes on college campuses. Based on the arguments, I have defined three groups, which I have named First Amendment Absolutists, Pro-Regulators, and Supportive Skeptics[1] [0].

First Amendment Absolutists

Arguments made by First Amendment Absolutists[2] [0] range from liberal to conservative, but share a common language, which exalts the First Amendment as the most important liberty of the United States. Freedom of speech is regarded as a fundamental or essential right. Conservative absolutist Frank Ellis considers freedom of speech to be “a foundation of the West” (1). The first premise of the First Amendment Absolutist argument, used by liberal and conservative Absolutists alike, is that free speech is indivisible.[3] [0] The general concept of freedom is also employed, especially in regards to speech codes on college campuses and concepts such as the “marketplace of ideas.” Therefore according to Absolutists, speech codes limit access to all the ideas on the market. Plus, who wants to be anti-freedom?

Another group of arguments common to more conservative First Amendment Absolutists is framed within the discourse of political correctness and a questioning of whether the term “hate speech” is in itself leftist propaganda. Some conservative scholars have practically made political correctness a field of study of its own and often refer to it as a cult or dictatorship (Ellis 2). Interestingly enough, it is mostly those who disapprove of political correctness that use the term. Some scholars such as Frank Ellis and Dwight Murphey emphasize the attack on or victimization of white men in the university setting, in which the PC climate targets them unfairly. Murphey illustrates this argument, which is quite conservative even for many Absolutists, when he describes that the Left, “sees the mainstream middle-class culture as the suffocating element; it isn’t non-Left dissenters who are repressed, it is ‘minorities.’ This is the ‘conventional wisdom’ that takes no account of the ideological incubus that today dictates what is and is not acceptable opinion” (339). Thus, PC discourse has become a distinct niche used to disapprove of leftist politics and its influence on the concept of hate speech.

The first frame of arguments refers to the positive values of free speech. Likewise, the second condemns the negative causes and affects of restricting freedom of speech. Other frames of debate exist that are used by Absolutists such as the “sticks and stones” argument or that the term “hate speech” is too difficult to define. However the two discussed above seem to be most clear and prevalent.

Pro-Regulators

Arguments made by what I call Pro-Regulators generally employ language of identity politics, emphasizing the historical marginalization of certain groups in society. This point of view uses the “personal is political” concept, which attempts to place hate speech in the context of greater political repression of certain groups. Pro-Regulators state that hate speech infringes upon an individual’s civil rights, like the right to education. Therefore, restricting some amount of free speech is necessary in order to protect the civil rights of the targeted individual. This argument may be an attempt to meet the Absolutists with a rights-based discourse. Gerald Uelmen summarizes this point, demonstrating some of the language employed by Pro-Regulators:

The verbal attack is a symptom of an oppressive history of discrimination and subjugation that plagues the harmed student and hinders his or her ability to compete fairly in the academic arena. The resulting harm is clearly significant and, therefore, justifies limiting speech rights (Uelmen 1).

Another common argument within the debate occurring in and around university hate speech codes is framed within a critique of freedom and concepts such as the “marketplace of ideas.” Pro-Regulators state that hate speech does not contribute to debate, but rather exists only to incite violence. A common abbreviation for this distinction is “the difference between free speech and hate speech” (Storobin 1). Finally, there is an entire camp of arguments that focus on the psychological harm done to the targets of hate speech, which tends to emphasize the emotional impact on the individual as opposed to social impacts. In general however, Pro-Regulators tend to focus on identity politics, employing language about power.

Supportive Skeptics

The final group I have identified share commonalities with both First Amendment Absolutists and Pro-Regulators[4] [0]. The term Supportive Skeptics is used to illustrate a point of view which supports the condemnation of hate speech, but is skeptical of the use of speech codes as the means to condemn it. The first premise of the Supportive Skeptics argument is that speech codes do not address underlying causes of hate speech and only foster more hateful ideas. Supportive Skeptics often use language similar to Pro-Regulators, i.e. power and identity politics. Tim Pilgrim demonstrates this point in an essay entitled, “Giving Oral Expression ‘Free Reign’: Implications for Diversity of University Hate Speech Codes:

Placing limitations on the verbal expressions toward group hatred…does not make those attitudes disappear. Instead, it forces them underground. In effect, suppression of hateful expressions makes society think it has solved a problem that actually persists… Thus, in turn, makes censored material and its advocates into martyrs and increases public curiosity about their stances (Pilgrim 27).

The other main element of Supportive Skeptic’s arguments suggests alternative means to regulate hate speech, demonstrated by phrases like, “community accountability” and “fight hate speech with more speech.” Whatever terms are used, it is generally agreed upon that some form of education or action designated voluntarily by community members (not a governing body) would be more suitable to address hate speech. The ACLU exemplifies this viewpoint in a statement suggesting, “The best way to combat hate speech on campus is through an educational approach that includes counter-speech, workshops on bigotry and its role in American and world history, and real—not superficial—institutional change” (aclu.com).

Discussion/Conclusion

That is a whole nether quarter...

Works Cited

 

“Hate Speech on Campus.” American Civil Liberties Union. 31 December 1994. http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html [1]

Ellis, Frank. “From Communism’s ‘Enemy of the People’ to PC’s ‘Hate Criminal.” The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies. 30 (2005): 99-119

Murphey, Dwight D. “Coneptual Issues in Prohibiting ‘Hate Speech’.” Mankind Quarterly. 43 (2003) 335.

Pilgrim, Tim A. “Giving Oral Expression ‘Free Rein’: Implications for Diversity of University Hate Speech Codes.” Ethnic Studies Review 20 (1997): 25

Storobin, David. “The Difference Between Free Speech and Hate Speech.” Global Politician. 15 May 2007. http://globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=2802&cid=1 [2]

Uelmen, Gerald. “The Price of Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes.” Issues in Ethics. 5 (1992).

“Speech Code.” Wikipedia. www.wikipedia.org [3].

 

Bibliography

Cornwell, Nancy C. “Rethinking Free Expression in the Feminist Classroom: The Problem of Hate Speech.” Feminist Teacher. 12 (1998): 107.

McGaffey, Ruth. “Freedom of Speech: Freedom for the Ideas We Hate.” The English Journal. 64 (1975): 14-15.

Greene, Linda S. “Racial Discourse, Hate Speech, and Political Correctness.” National Forum. 75 (1995): 32.

Tucker, Patrick. “Speech Codes and the Future of Education.” The Futurist. 40 (2006): 11.