Sources & Extracts

Review this excerpt and then use the BACK key in your browser to return to the page you were on.

The importance of how we conceptualize behavior has been stressed by many writers. The point applies whether we are looking at the issues morally, legally, or sociologically. Taking a legal perspective, Martha Minow, Professor of Law at Harvard University, make the following comments:
Even more generally, I wonder if we stray from neutrality because we tend to take for granted a frame of reference that is familiar to us, without pausing to justify it. . . . I've thought about this in the context of the incidents at Stanford's Ujaama House. They have often been called by the name, "hate speech;" this triggers a free expression analysis. What we call a problem is half-way towards our treatment of it. Naming categorizes. We use our categories to tell us what to do. . . .
Consider an alternative name, "harassment." As your campuses develop codes against sexual and racial harassment, for example, statements and comments that once might have been viewed as simply free expression are now treated as impermissible harassment, depending upon the context.
Consider another alternative name, group defamation. . . . The line that is important, and difficult, to draw, is between social criticism and group defamation. . . .
Reference: Martha Minow, "Looking Ahead to the 1990's: Constitutional Law and American Colleges and Universities," reprinted in Regulating Racial Harassment On Campus: A Legal Compendium. See pages 220-222.