Freedom of speech may be a constitutional right, but it is restricted by many colleges across the nation that have speech codes. The University, for example, received a poor "red light" rating last year for its speech policy by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Fortunately, the University has since changed or eliminated its codes. This move was the right decision, and more universities should follow suit and recognize the importance of using precise language in such policies.
Stringent speech codes are prevalent in many Virginia universities. For example, school officials must approve any form of assembly or free speech at James Madison University at least 48 hours in advance. Meanwhile, George Mason University's current policy prohibits "any form of bigotry . . . whether verbal, written, psychological, direct, or implied." Whereas JMU's policy puts students in the strange position of having to obtain prior approval for exercising free speech, the haziness of GMU's codes could allow its administrators to restrict many forms of expression and communication on campus. In fact, GMU officials must formally approve any form of "sale, distribution, or solicitation" from GMU or non-GMU organizations and individuals. The policies at both schools undermine the spirit of both free speech and freedom of assembly and ought to be amended.
The University showed good judgment when it refined the wording in four areas of its speech code during the summer. The first change applied to the Just Report It! program. Previously, the Office of the Dean of Students - which sponsors the program - promised to investigate all reports of any "threat or act of bigotry, harassment or intimidation - verbal, written or physical." The vague language - specifically the word "bigotry" - left open the possibility for the University to limit constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and assembly. Dean of Students Allen Groves clarified the policy by amending its provisions. "Some bias-motivated or otherwise disrespectful acts may be constitutionally protected speech and thus not subject to University disciplinary action or formal investigation," he said in a public statement regarding the changes. Groves removed language implying that all reports were subject to formal disciplinary action by the University.
The second change eliminated vague terms in the University's Internet policy that implied all Internet communication and activities were subject to scrutiny. More specifically, the University removed two statements that previously prohibited students from posting messages that "vilify" and threaten other people and from posting "inappropriate messages" to listservs because the language was too vague. Finally, the University's Women's Center removed two statements on its website about sexual harassment that could have implied that constitutionally-protected forms of expression - such as "teasing" or using "innuendo" - were subject to punitive measures.
The most important aspect of these changes is that they distingish between protected speech and evidence of assault or harassment without fundamentally altering the important goal of creating a caring, respectful community. The University, like other schools, likely had good intentions by adopting stricter speech codes. After all, the University has a responsibility to protect each of its students from harm when possible.
University officials should be commended for reworking the policies' details. Eliminating stringent speech codes allows students to voice their opinions openly and challenge others' beliefs. This process forces individuals to engage in discussions that benefit everyone; those who express prejudice must defend their illogical assertions in the public square. That line of thinking seems to fit in well with the academic mission of a university, but there is a more practical benefit to clarifying these policies, too: Students gain a better understanding what does and does not cross the line and subject them to sanction by school officials.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 7 hours agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 12 hours agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
PARTING SHOT: Risk and reward
By Charlie Healy | YesterdayThe college newspaper was nowhere on my radar, and I had no previous experience with journalism.
