Beyond the Campus? (John Speaking)
						MAIN PATH: Vera
		Ann

It seems to me that your argument involves an important shift. Up until now Ann and Malik and Vera have been making legal arguments to support campus speech codes. They have offered several arguments:

• The university has a special goal that is disrupted by hate speech, and therefore hate speech can be restricted.

• The university is obligated to provide equal access to educational opportunities for all its students. Hate speech interferes with equal access, and therefore it can be restricted.

• The university has an obligation to maintain an environment that is not hostile to any of its students. Hate speech creates such an environment, and therefore it can be restricted.

• Black students are especially vulnerable on campuses that have been all white or nearly all white. Many are away from home for the first time. The culture of the university is foreign. The hostility of some white students is very disturbing and debilitating. For all these reasons, the university can and should restrict hate speech.

But now, Malik, you are talking about something much broader. You are saying that some racist speech should be on a lower legal tier along with commercial speech and obscenity. Once it's on the lower tier, it can be regulated because it causes harm. This argument not only applies to campuses, it applies to the entire country. What you are offering now is a justification for a law (not a campus policy) against hate speech.

Ariadne Home	Hate Speech Bibliography	Hate Speech Home