Speech Codes on College Campuses

A Quick Fix:

Speech Codes on College Campuses

Beginning in the 1980’s and going strong into the early 90’s, speech codes on college campuses restricted the radical words that initiated protests by students, faculty, and staff members. Limitations defined by college administrators controlled the context and content of what its affiliates could say freely in the jurisdiction of the campus. In spite of this, outraged students demanded that their First Amendment rights be protected and took their colleges’ speech codes to the court room. Although Federal Courts felt that speech codes were based on good intentions, the plaintiff’s always brought home the gold. Speech codes were deemed unconstitutional under the ordinance that they were either “vague” or “overbroad” (as cited in Hudson Jr., 2005). Speech codes were quick fixes to a deeper problem; college administrators were putting a band-aid on a wound that needed stitches.

Proponents advocating for speech codes on college campuses claimed that it provided a safe environment for the campuses affiliates. Students should not have had to fear repercussions for their “immutable characteristics” or opinions based on theories, beliefs, or morals (Fraleigh and Tuman, 1997, p. 170). Hate speech, which is any form of insult directed at a single group based on a similar characteristic, was the trigger that jump started speech codes. Regarded by some as unnecessary for the learning environment, hate speech has provoked many violent crimes, but even fiercer battles within the walls of the courtroom. Proponents maintained that hate speech was comparable to fighting words, a type of speech that does not receive First Amendment protection (Hudson Jr., 2005). Speech codes were not developed to restrict speech, but to protect the victims from the offensive words made by others on a college campus.

To answer the question of whether speech codes were constitutional or not, we must look at both sides being argued. Advocates wished to limit speech in respects to those whom it offended, whereas critics declared if we were to infringe on the rights of some, we all would be next (ACLU, 1994). Both issues were addressed on solid grounds with substantial information that argued every angle. However, when brought before the Federal Court, critics were considered “correct” and the government rejected all cases of college speech codes being constitutional. Nevertheless, the courts did state that if a college was able to make a speech code policy that did not infringe on First Amendment rights, the courts would declare it constitutional (Fraleigh and Tuman, 1997, p. 193). Although this opened the door to possibility, colleges have since not been able to correctly introduce constitutional speech codes.

It is ironic that the federal courts maintain that a college may impose speech codes on their affiliates, but once brought up in federal court, the speech code is always considered unconstitutional. Perhaps this thought, that speech can be limited, is used to support proponents that desire speech codes on college campuses. If proponents know there is hope for the future, then that hope will entice them to continue to search for possible speech codes. However, if speech codes keep being rejected, then will proponents still be satisfied with hope? This further develops the idea that speech codes are band-aids. The federal court is preventing riots from speech code proponents by giving them hope; speech codes prevent protests on college campuses by restricting speech. Either way, preventing riots or protests, we are not solving any problems. Instead, it is our duty as civilians to voice what we perceive to be true, although it may hurt others or cause distress within our community. You can never truly understand and appreciate the rights given to us by our founding fathers if you never challenge them.

Another issue rising from this situation involves the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and the FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). Both are foundations developed to protect all forms of speech. The ACLU produced an article which answered similar questions prompted by civilians who wanted to know why the ACLU would defend free speech of racist, sexists, homophobes, and other bigots. The answer is simple: restricting the speech of one group jeopardizes the free speech of all groups (ACLU, 1994). This was the same precedent set forth by critics of speech codes; if we were to limit the right to hate speech on a college campus, then we have limited the right of those speaking out against hate speech on a college campus. Speech codes are unconstitutional not only because they infringe on First Amendment rights, but also because they prevent civilians from answering the real problem. If we are to solve the problem of hate speech, then we must not simply