In response to the unfortunate incident of racial bias last week, when a group of students shouted racial slurs at another group of students, University students may be tempted to respond by calling for changes to our honor code or University Judiciary Committee by-laws, effectively giving these groups the authority to punish students who engage in certain speech and behavior. Responding to these sort of incidents by granting judicial bodies more authority is not the path the University should take. Rather, there are more effective - and Constitutionally appropriate - ways for the University community to respond to this type of incident in a positive manner and show support for those personally affected.
The response of many student groups on Grounds calling for unity and for students to reject this kind of behavior is incredible and a true testament to the willingness of our community to stand behind our fellow students. Calling on the University community to come together to say that this is socially unacceptable behavior will hopefully show everyone affected by this incident that they have the support of their fellow peers. There is, however, a huge distinction between when the University as a community comes together to say that we believe certain behavior and speech is socially unacceptable and when the University goes one step further to actually punish students who act in ways contrary to what the University believes is appropriate. This amounts to the University effectively dictating to students what they can and cannot think, say and believe in order to be a part of this institution. We as individuals should condemn the sort of behavior that took place last week as completely inappropriate. The University should not, however, attempt to change the honor code or UJC by-laws to include offensive and unpopular speech as punishable offenses.
The University has every right to state what it believes is acceptable speech and behavior by its students, faculty and staff. The University does not, however, have the legal authority to punish individuals who use offensive speech and should tread carefully when responding to such events. Although insolent speech is certainly rude, inappropriate and even hurtful, it is not and should not be classified as illegal. Since the University is a public institution, it is required to respect all the rights guaranteed to students in the U.S. Constitution. This includes the rights to freedom of expression. While yes, most of us might agree that certain kinds of speech are socially inappropriate, unpopular or offensive speech is nevertheless protected speech. Indeed there would be no need for a First Amendment if there were no offensive speech. Whether it is the right of people to sell videos depicting animal cruelty, which the U.S. Supreme Court recently confirmed in an 8-1 ruling, or incidents such as those that took place last week, there are certain kinds of speech that might make us sick to our stomach. The fact that individuals have the right to make offensive speech means that other individuals have the right to counter that speech. This right to counter includes University members showing their disapproval for hurtful speech and using reason, not legal force, to argue that certain types of speech are inappropriate. This includes speaking up and standing up for your friends and fellow classmates even when it may be unpopular to do so.
If the University were to institute changes to its current judicial processes to classify certain types of speech as punishable acts, then the University would not only encounter Constitutional challenges but also logistical ones. Restricting certain kinds of speech is hard to do. Terms such as "racial slur," "derogatory comments," and "offensive speech" are extremely vague and beg the question, Who gets to decide what speech is allowed and what isn't? There is no right to not be offended. Guaranteeing freedom of expression means that at some point, someone will say something that you don't agree with or find abhorrent. Trying to outlaw all insolent speech would be impossible because different things are offensive to different people and "offensive" is nearly impossible to objectively define. This is why freedom of expression must be fervently protected. Once you start banning certain types of speech it will only lead to stricter speech codes as the classifications of offensive speech are extremely vague and subjective.
It is right and important for our community to come together in support of each other after incidents such as the one last week. This includes engaging in voluntary, constructive dialogue and speaking out when we believe someone is acting inappropriately. Using reason to show that this type of behavior is repugnant may not cause all students who disagree to completely change their minds, but it will at the very least cause students to think more carefully about their actions and how they affect others. This is preferable to using the University's legal power to show people that this type of behavior is morally wrong. Most would agree that it is not the job of the University or the government to legislate morality. Now is certainly not the time for the University to start doing so.
Megan Stiles' column appears Wednesdays. She can be reached at m.stiles@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
