What is to be Done? (John Speaking)
						MAIN PATH: Dee
				Fred	Vera	Malik	Dee

My view is a lot like yours, Dee. As a last resort, I would support a very narrow code aimed at face-to-face harassment. The value would be partly in relieving the distress of the victims and partly in a kind of symbolic expression of sympathy on the part of the university. The code we have is too broad in some ways and too narrow in others. I think it is essential that an acceptable code have certain features:

• It must be very narrowly drawn.
• The moral principle underlying the code must be clearly stated. The reason why some kinds of speech are covered and others are not must be understood. That way we can at least begin to discuss whether equal cases are being treated equally.
• It must be content neutral. For example, it might ban ALL harassing speech and not just racist or sexist speech that harasses.
• The code must work. It must do what it is supposed to do. For example, if we claim that the code will reduce racial tension, we have to look and see whether it does so. If it doesn't, then we have to reconsider it. We must not assume that good intentions guarantee the desired results.
• The code should be adopted only as a last resort. We should use educational methods whenever possible.
• The code should apply to all students, white and black. Otherwise, I believe that it will backfire and increase tension and conflict on campus.
• The penalties should be graduated. Students who break the rule should be given a chance to reform before they are suspended or expelled.

The main emphasis, however, should be on an educational approach to the problems of cultural diversity and racism on campus. This is a university. We are supposed to educate, not punish.

Ariadne Home	Hate Speech Bibliography	Hate Speech Home