Censorship of Hate-Speech on College Campuses

Censorship of Hate-Speech on College Campuses

In the debate over censoring hate-speech on college campuses, the opponents argue that there should not be hate-speech policies at college campuses' because of their belief in academic freedom. On the other side of the debate, the supporters argue that there should be hate-speech policies on college campuses' because of their belief that students should not have to study in a hostile environment. In this paper, I will conclude that we should not censor hate-speech in college campuses.

In the article titled, "Prohibiting Racist Speech on Campus", Professor Charles Lawrence concludes that Universities should create policies against racist hate-speech. One of Lawrence's reasons for censorship is that there has been a resurgence of violence due to hate-speech; but he does not support this claim. His second reason is that if we allow complete free speech on college campuses that it will in turn foster more hate-speech.

The third reason is that we have drawn the line before in matters regarding regulation of our first amendment rights. The support for this reason includes references to court cases like Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and Brown v. Board of Education, which resulted in decisions that curtailed the first amendment right to an extent. His fourth reason is that a group of good lawyers could proffer a policy that controls the use of hate-speech as a weapon while still allowing freedom of speech. Lawrence's background reason is: It is a Universities responsibility to provide a hostile-free environment for its students. He supports this by saying that students shouldn't have to hide in their dorms to escape the horrors of racial epithets.

In the article titled, "Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought", Jonathan Rauch concludes that racist speech shouldn't be censored on college campuses. The first reason Rauch presents is that nobody can justly distinguish what is hurtful and what isn't. He supports this by saying that you cannot put someone's mind or intentions on trial; and that just because someone is offended by another's words, it does not mean that the intentions of the speaker were to hurt. The second reason is words are not bullets, or simply put, words are not physical attacks or violence and should not be taken as a physical idea. He supports this reason by saying that in an academic area we must be able to take criticism and not seek vengeance by returning with physical violence.

The third reason presented is that it's not right to make exceptions in our society for historically oppressed groups. Rauch says that if we single out minorities we are discrediting them by withholding criticism towards them. Just because you are oppressed does not mean you are right, and to withhold criticism to your ideas would degenerate your ability to study in an academic setting. Rauch's background reason is that criticism is a necessary to have academic freedom. He supports this argument by describing two pillars of "liberal science" or academic freedom; which are the right to offend in the pursuit of truth and the responsibility to check and be checked. These two pillars are what Rauch believes is the fastest way to find error while keeping hurt to a minimum.

After analyzing and evaluating both arguments, I