University Goals (Dee Speaking)
						MAIN PATH: Vera
			John	Fred	Vera

I think you may have an argument that will justify a very narrow range of restriction on speech in specific circumstances if you can prove that those circumstance exist.

• Inside the classroom, disruptive speech clearly interferes with the educational process. I think there would be no constitutional problem with rules that prohibit disruption in class. But a rule prohibiting disruption should prohibit all disruption, not just racist speech that disrupts. Otherwise it is content based or viewpoint based. That is not the way our university code is written.
  

• Outside the classroom, you have more serious constitutional problems. The constitution does not allow state agencies to control speech in order to create a pleasant environment. By and large, offensive speech is protected speech. If you could show a very tight fit between hate speech outside the classroom and interference with the educational goals of the university, you might be able to make your case in court. Neither you nor the university has offered any substantial proof of such a tight fit.
  

• I believe that a narrowly drawn code that prohibits face-to-face verbal harassment may be constitutional. But the code that this university has adopted is much broader and vaguer and is clearly content based. For all these reasons, I think it will be found unconstitutional by the courts.

Reference: See, for example, McGowan and Tangri, section IV, p. 898-905.

Ariadne Home	Hate Speech Bibliography	Hate Speech Home