|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Midwest University did not appeal the court's ruling. Instead, it
adopted a new policy called the "Interim Policy on Discrimination and
Discriminatory Conduct by Students in the University Environment." The new
policy was narrower than the policy it replaced. It included the following
language:
. . . Midwest University has determined that it needs to intervene in speech when a student intentionally uses racial, ethnocentric or sexual invectives, epithets, slurs or utterances directly to attack or injure another individual rather than express or discuss an idea, ideology or philosophy. Such attacks go beyond the boundaries of protected free speech. In those instances, the University must protect the educational environment of the University.
The Interim Policy, like the old policy, divided the campus into three
areas. In academic areas, it prohibited certain speech made "with the
purpose of injuring the person to whom the words or actions are directed
and that are not made as a part of a discussion or exchange of an idea,
ideology or philosophy…."
The new policy was thus narrowly limited to speech directed at individuals with the intent to injure. The university hoped that by narrowing the policy it could survive a challenge to its constitutionality.
The title of the new policy mirrors the state of American society - a state of uncertainty. The problems that the policy seeks to resolve, and the conflicting values it attempts to reconcile, remain with us. At the very least, they raise questions for each of us to consider:
- What is the philosophical basis of an open and tolerant policy on freedom of expression?
- What does such a policy, or its philosophical basis, imply about racist speech, hate speech, and pornography?
- To what extent and in what way does hate speech harm some members of society? How should that harm be taken into consideration when deciding the 'proper' limits on free expression?
- Are all values, even the most basic, the kinds of things that can and should be balanced against each other in cases of conflict? Or should some values be regarded as rights (interpreted as side constraints) on such balancing? Where does a right to free expression fit into such a scheme of balancing or side constraints?
- What is political liberalism and what is a liberal society? What right of expression should be a part of such a society?
- Can we resolve the problems of race and racism in the United States within the framework of a liberal society as it is currently understood?
- Do we need to reconsider fundamental questions about the moral basis of civil society and discuss them within a more inclusive body including women, African Americans, and others that have been historically left out of the deliberative process?
- What is stigma and what is its role in the creation and persistence of substantive social inequality (e.g., inequality of income, wealth, and power) between whites and blacks or men and women? Can substantive equality be achieved only by directly attacking stigma? Must that attack include attempts to reform attitudes, values, ideas, and symbols?
- What is the role of language, especially hate speech, in the creation of stigma and inequality? Can stigma and substantive inequality be greatly reduced without changing the currently dominant interpretation of the First amendment?
- To what extent can government use its power to form anti-racist and anti-sexist values and attitudes without undermining the basis of its own legitimacy?
These are some of the questions that John, Ann, Fred, Malik, Vera, and Dee have discussed. What do you think?
Reference: The quotation is taken from the interim policy adopted by the University Of Michigan after losing John Doe v. University of Michigan.