The Constitution guarantees Americans certain inalienable
rights, but nowhere does it guarantee the right to “not be
offended.”
Apparently some at Harvard Law need to brush up on their
constitutional studies. The Boston Globe reports a Harvard Law
Students Association, in addition to some faculty, have been
pressing for a speech code that would ban harassing, offensive
language from the classroom. This is, according to the Globe, a
“highly unusual step for a law school and a move that runs
counter to a national trend against interfering with campus
speech.”
Though language used in a private classroom is not
constitutionally protected speech, it is baffling that Harvard Law
School, an institution whose alumni have worked hard to protect and
strengthen the First Amendment, is on the verge of abandoning its
principles inside its hallowed halls.
The push for speech codes intensified last spring as a reaction
to a handful of racially inappropriate incidents ““ a
student’s use of the word “nig” in an online
course notebook, a professor coming to that student’s
defense, and another professor’s contention that feminism,
Marxism, and black studies have “contributed nothing”
to tort law, which is used in cases of a wrongful act other than a
breach of contract for which damages or an injunction may be
awarded.
There is no doubt terms like “nig” are offensive.
But the proper response to offensive speech is speak against it,
not censor it. Indeed, an intellectual argument pointing out the
misguided nature of offensive speech can go further in stomping out
the roots of insensitivity than can any speech code. And it can do
so without hampering free speech.
According to UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, “speech
codes risk deterring even reasoned, polite argument “¦ when
faced with a vague standard such as “˜harassing’ or
“˜offensive,’ wise students tend to avoid anything that
might get them suspended or expelled.”
In addition to imposing a nebulous cloud of regulation, speech
codes present an additional danger. Volokh contends speech codes
“lead people to see offensive speech not only as bad manners,
but a violation of their rights “¦ and the result is more felt
offense, not less.”
It now appears as if the very drafting of code particulars may
cause some racial groups a great deal of “offense.”
Clearly, what is and is not offensive is in the eye of the
beholder. Are slurs against whites ever as offensive as the
“N-word”? Is usage of the term “Indian”
instead of “Native American” offensive? And if so, is
it enough to warrant a ban?
These are the kinds of subjective questions a board of Harvard
administrators will foolishly attempt to tackle. As Harvard
professor and speech code-critic Alan Dershowitz aptly points out,
“Result-oriented distinctions will not suffice in an area so
dominated by passion and experience “¦ It would be wrong for a
great university to get into the business of comparing historic
grievances.”
But this is exactly what Harvard has done. Despite
Dershowitz’s warning, it seems political correctness is on
the verge of trumping common sense in our nation’s most
heralded educational institution. We can only hope this misguided
policy stays locked in Harvard’s ivory tower, away from
universities which still value free speech.