Too Broad a Rationale
(Dee Speaking)

 
Source

MAIN PATH: Fred
 
 
Fred
 
 
 

You say that you support a narrowly drawn code, but the rationale you offer could just as well be used to support a very broad code.

I think that a very narrowly drawn code that prohibits harassing individuals through the use of words might be a good thing and might not violate anyone's rights. Even as a libertarian, I'm open to talking more about that possibility. But your rationale would justify a code that banned anything that helps to create an unpleasant learning environment for anyone. Think of the problems that leads to. For example, it may be true that anti-war rallies and demonstrations in the 60s and 70s created an difficult environment for some students. Perhaps the ROTC students or the students who were veterans felt under attack. But we did not ban the rallies, and we should not have, because of the value of an open debate. The students who were made uncomfortable had to live with it. Your rationale would justify a ban on many things of this sort.

The better solution is not to ban racist speech but rather to supply African American students with the resources they need so that they are not silenced.

Reference: Dee's view is similar to that expressed by Nadine Strossen in her paper "Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal." Her paper originally appeared in the Duke Law Journal. It is partially reprinted in Hate Speech On Campus edited by Milton Heumann and Thomas Church.
Ariadne Home Hate Speech
Bibliography		 Hate Speech
Home