Category C: Hate crimes, yes. “Hate speech”, no.

I have no problem with disciplining someone who shoves a person to the ground while shouting a slur; that person is not being punished for what he said, but only as insofar as it helps shine light on what his intentions were in carrying out the attack (i.e., evidence that the attack was motivated by race, sexual orientation, etc.)

But the line becomes very blurry when we cross the action line and start criminalizing speech. First, even if incredibly offensive and deprecatory, should we be punishing students for mere speech, unaccompanied by words? Where do you draw the line?

Let me give you a list of examples — some may be easy, some difficult — but all have came up in situations where other universities have tried to institute speech codes. Would you prosecute?

1. White student at party calls a black student ‘Nigger’

2. Black student at party calls a black student ‘Nigger’

3. White student in history class, discussing America’s history of racial segregation, uses ‘nigger’ in reference to historical events

4. White student outside is walking through Red Square with headphones, rapping to “Forgot About Dre” [am I dating myself with that reference?], raps the word ‘Nigger’

5. Gay student, unhappy with the Catholic Church’s involvement in protesting against gay marriage in Maine, plasters posters around campus / speaks out around campus with various anti-Catholic slogans, e.g. “Fuck Catholics” “The Church is Bigoted” “If you don’t support gay marriage, you are a fucking dickhead,” etc.

6. Student, unhappy with newspapers’ bowing down to censorship, decides to walk around with the Mohammed cartoons printed up on his shirt, or places posters around campus with the Mohammed cartoons.

7. Feminist student, unhappy with Islam’s treatment of women, calls Muslims bigoted, etc. Calls Mohammed a ‘pedophile’ for marrying a 12-year-old.

8. Palestinian student gets in heated debate with members of the Georgetown Israel Alliance over recent Gaza offensive, calls Israelis “Nazis” “warmongerers” and in a fit of passionate rage, exclaims that he wished “the Holocaust had been successful” so they wouldn’t be committing further crimes against the Palestinians.

9. The Hoya April Fools Edition

* * * *

As you can see, what once seemed like an easy call is very difficult. And even if you, yourself, would not choose to prosecute someone in a certain instance, would everyone? And if everyone lives under the threat of possible prosecution, they will moderate their speech so as to cut out everything potentially offensive.

This does not help counteract prejudice — it just buries it and leaves it to fester underground. Only by counteracting bad speech with better speech do we tackle the prejudices head-on and overcome them.

For this reason, I would urge everyone to not support the inclusion of ‘hate speech’ as a Category C violation.

A few more:

10. Student protests outside of LGBTQ center with poster reading: “God Hates Gays” with quote from Leviticus.

11. Same deal, except it’s “God Hates Fags”

12. Ditto, “God Hates Queers”

13. Student protests in Red Square against Georgetown Israel Alliance with poster reading: “The Jews Are Responsible For The Death of Jesus” and a quote from Matthew 27:24-25.

14. A Professor or student has gone through a high-profile divorce recently. Student protests them with signs reading: “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Lev. 20:10″

15. For some reason, there’s a high-profile conversion of Muslim students into another religion. Muslim student protests in Red Square with quote from Qur’an 4:89 “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them” or more simply, “Apostates to Islam should be killed.”

16. Person in Red Square with sign saying, “Gays, Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians and Adulterers are going to Hell.”

I don’t think you understand what the definition of a hate crime is… “a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or ethnicity/national origin”

Free speech does not fall under hate crimes. So your examples don’t fit. For it to be a hate crime you have to commit an actual underling crime.

Mark:

I agree, which is why in my first post I said hate crimes, yes, hate speech, no.

However, in the GUSA Senate, there is a resolution recommending that the following be placed as a Category C offense:

10. Hate-Crimes/Bias Related Incident- Category C

Crimes motivated by aggression towards perceived race, disability, marital status, gender, ethnicity, religion and/or sexual orientation contradict the mission of Georgetown. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters. Bias-related Code violations are especially intolerable in view of the University’s commitment to respect for all members of the community. 


I don’t know if the other proponents of adding Category C violations also want to include speech alone in their definition or not, and wanted to clarify and show why it shouldn’t be included.

But I’m glad you agree with the underlying point — that only actual crimes should be punishable.

“First, even if incredibly offensive and deprecatory, should we be punishing students for mere speech, unaccompanied by words?”

How can speech be unaccompanied by words?

Unaccompanied by action that should’ve read, sorry.

How can his argument be unaccompanied by logic?

Harassment actually already is punishable under the DC Criminal Code, if certain stipulations are met:

“(a) (1) Whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both.”

[As an MPD officer once explained to me, it's technically a crime even to fake like you're going to punch someone, for example.]

(b) Any person who on more than one occasion engages in conduct with the intent to cause emotional distress to another person or places another person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or harassing that person, or who, without a legal purpose, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, is guilty of the crime of stalking and shall be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned not more than 12 months, or both. Constitutionally protected activity, such as conduct by a party to a labor dispute… is not included within the meaning of this definition.

(e) For the purpose of this section, the term “harassing” means engaging in a course of conduct either in person, by telephone, or in writing, directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms, annoys, frightens, or torments the person, or engaging in a course of conduct either in person, by telephone, or in writing, which would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed, frightened, or tormented.

So, yes, while free speech is protected by the law (even though GU’s “Speech and Expression Policy” does curtail those liberties, in my view, unconstitutionally), if you’re directing it at someone, especially more than once with the intent to cause emotional stress, you’re already breaking the law.

Props to GUSA for stepping up to the plate!

So, Dave:

Which, of my previous scenarios, do you think would qualify?

I seriously doubt any of the previous scenarios (except, perhaps, the first — and then only for ‘fighting words’ and not ‘harassment’) could result in a conviction that would be upheld by a court (or at least the Appeals Court). As FIRE put it: “As the Office for Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education stated in a July 28, 2003 letter to college administrators, harassment is legally understood to require “something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive.” Rather, to legally constitute “hostile environment harassment,” the behavior in question must be “sufficiently serious (i.e., severe, persistent or pervasive) as to limit or deny a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program.”

Do I think that if Georgetown had a policy of ‘harassment’, it would hold it to the same standards as a courtroom? Absolutely not.

Time and time again, universities have used speech codes as a way to control unpopular speech.

So, again, I’m just asking: under this definition of speech code (even of the DC anti-harassment statute), would any of the above-mentioned behaviors violate it?

Dude I didn’t read through your list of whatever the hell you wrote because they’re irrelevant hypothetical scenarios that, upon a cursory glance, appear to do nothing more than inflame the situation.

The law seems to be saying that if you’re targeting or threatening a specific person, then you don’t have much of a leg to stand on in court. There’s a gray area with a lot of legal issues.. that’s what keeps large swaths of the judicial system employed.

Dave:

I’m not disagreeing with you, here. We’re not talking about what a court would do.

We’re talking about the potential effect of including bias-related “harssment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters” into Georgetown University’s Code of Conduct as a Category C offense. That is, Georgetown punishing people for these things.

And I gave a list of plausible scenarios that could come up, and even some that did (like the Hoya’s April Fools edition), and asked whether or not they could conceivably fall into that definition. Almost, if not all the scenarios are constitutional and would be nonpunishable at a public school.

My point on having a speech code is that many of these activities may fall under scrutiny, used as a weapon by the majority against merely ‘unpopular’ speech — and with actual consequences (suspension or expulsion).

And even if people aren’t convicted of these offenses, if they are scared of engaging in constitutionally-legal behavior because of the threat of possible suspension or expulsion, the Code will have chilled student speech.

* * *

Again, Dave (and anyone else reading this), many of the situations are very plausible. What if this speech code was in place for the Hoya April Fools debacle? The writers of the articles were guilty of poor taste and tasteless humor, but not of a Category C offense.

And what, next time, to a student, columnist or editor considering whether to publish a controversial piece that might question the mainstream views?

Let me repeat: Every time speech codes have been instituted on campus, they are inevitably abused by administrators and students to punish unpopular speech.

At Georgetown itself, the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action filed a complaint against the Hoya for their April Fools edition. The Media Board sanctioned the Hoya and was almost going to make them reveal the individual authors of the articles. That was without any Cat C violations.

Elsewhere, a professor at Lake Superior State University posted articles outside his front door dealing with issues of “Islamic terrorism, gun control, presidential politics, and the war in Iraq,” a student complained and he was ordered to remove the materials or face disciplinary action.

At another university, a student was found guilty of racial harassment simply for publicly reading the book “Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan” (no, I’m not shitting you). “The AAO alleged that by reading a book on the KKK in the break room, Sampson had engaged in racial harassment. Sampson attempted to explain that the book, written by Todd Tucker, was a historical account of the events on two days in May 1924, when a group of Notre Dame students fought with members of the Ku Klux Klan. His explanation was dismissed, and he later received a letter from Charleston that determined he was guilty of racial harassment. Charleston wrote that his failures included “openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject.”"

At Colorado College, a group of male students were found guilty by posting a flying satirically mocking a flyer by the Feminist & Gender Studies’ Interns. See more details here: http://www.thefire.org/case/759.html

* * *

Bottom line: This will lead to abuse if included. It should not be included.

Obviously Student has his eye on the ball here.

Dave just wants to promote his agenda without any thoughts about the repercussions, similar to footing a healthcare bill without knowing how it will be paid for or how many doctors there will actually be to see that many patients (not to mention in the midst of a doctor shortage).

What I’m saying is I don’t actually care what Georgetown says in its speech and expression policy. Believe me, I’ve had it waved in my face before by administrators who used it to bar students’ entry into buildings on account of what they were saying and/or wearing. While I’m not a libertarian, I can assure you I take the Bill of Rights seriously. When we went ahead and “violated” their policy anyways, right in front of them, they didn’t do anything.

Why? Because it wouldn’t hold up in *court*. BTW, we had cameras rolling.

Now.. if you were on the other hand to — for whatever reason — record yourselves really threatening people with hate speech, and the university felt compelled to sanction or expel you (as I believe they should).. I doubt you’d have much, if anything, to work with in court.

I’m sorry, Agreed, were we talking about health care? Would you like to turn this seemingly thoughtful conversation into a flame war? I’d love to have one I grant you it’s been awhile, but there are times when you should think before you speak, and then there are the times you just shouldn’t speak, like for example, if you are about to call someone a ‘homo’. (see how I at least vaguely, in some way at all, related my comment to the topic at hand? oh boy Georgetown’s really taught me a lot)

Please continue, Dave and Student.

this is the USA and TV shows are full of bias.. thought this would give good to discuss. Sadly, RACISM is alive and well on our shores of America, en Espanol. We could not believe our eyes/ears watching this on Spanish TV, so got it taped and translate/subtitled for ‘Mainstream USA’ to notice what slides by on our own ‘foreign-language’ media. WARNING: The jokes are offensive to most all races, except perhaps whatever you call Mexicans.

On Google-YouTube, search for MEXMUNDOVISION
, or click http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ci1Q0T7kUY

Dave:

Are you referring to the attempted sit-in at DeGioia’s office for the LGBTQ center? Of course the university wouldn’t do anything if you entered the building. (A) It’s hardly a punishable offense (what? Disobeying DPS’ orders?) and (B), and more importantly, it’s a popular cause.

As I’ve said before time and time again, popular speech doesn’t need protection.

You may be misinterpreting what I’m saying. We’re not talking about obviously ‘threatening’ speech – i.e. a person saying something that makes someone think they are in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or harm. If someone says, “Fuck you, homo,” while waving their fist menacingly, yeah, duh.

What I’m concerned about is the ‘grey areas’, dealing with unpopular, offensive (sometimes highly offensive to some groups) speech. As I said before, the Hoya was sanctioned for its April Fools edition, as a result of a complaint from the Affirmative Action office. Quibble about the technicalities, but the end result is that they were punished for their constitutionally-protected speech.

If bias-related ‘insults’ were included as a Category C offense at the time, would the students have been individually punished? Perhaps they wouldn’t've been expelled; perhaps they only would’ve had to write a “self-reflection” essay and had a disciplinary mark in their folders. Is that any less of a punishment?

Perhaps, as you say, that Georgetown wouldn’t have punished the writers of the articles. Perhaps. It certainly didn’t stop them from punishing the Hoya, while no one raised a finger because the Hoya writers had to go into full-out contrition mode to avoid greater punishment.

But look, let’s cut to the chase. Including bias-related ‘insults’ or ‘offensive’ posters in a Code of Conduct will have either two effects:

1. It will result in unpopular speech being punished (see my examples above — which you have still yet to actually address, for possible scenarios)

2. Even if such speech isn’t punished, the threat of punishment will act as a deterrent to stop unpopular issues from being discussed. This is arguably worse than actually trying to punish such speech.

You have not addressed how including such an open-ended speech could would not have this effect.

For example, let’s say the Georgetown Muslim Students’ Association, or the Center for Christian-Islamic Understanding, plans a week on highlighting the fact that Islam is a peaceful religion.

A conservative group of students wants to counter this series with their own with ‘Islamofascism Awareness Week’ and posts up flyers with certain Koranic verses, Hadiths, and statements by Muslim terrorists, tying Islam to violence.

Do they do it, or are they going to be afraid of expulsion?

It’s a salient point — because it actually happened. Not at Georgetown, but at GWU. In response, GWU’s President vowed to expel those responsible for the posters (until he found out that it was actually a liberal satire of conservative positions, designed to make the conservatives look bad). See http://volokh.com/posts/1192038610.shtml

“Student,” you have set up a straw man. Re-read the post. Nowhere does it say hate speech would be a Category C violation. So your point is moot.

That’s one of the incidents that I’m referring to. We were trying to deliver a petition — though the admins may have thought we were trying to sit in. (lmao)

I’ve been barred entry to university buildings at least four times, however, on more than one issue. I would argue that, each time, we were being discriminated against for “unpopular speech,” — by which I mean, we were saying things that were directly aimed at the university. They tried to tell us they were barring entry to us because we were “violating” the Speech and Expression policy. I’ve already told you I believe that policy is already unconstitutional.. and I think large segments of it would not hold up in court.

I wouldn’t fault you if you didn’t know, for example, that GU Pride’s predecessor — a group that was called “Gay People of Georgetown University” (don’t ask me where they got that name.. it was the ’70s) — actually had to sue GU to allow the group to form and use university funds. The case dragged on for years through the court system. It was about to go to the Supreme Court, when at the last minute, the Church (and I’m talking Rome here) intervened and told GU to drop it. Why? Because if GPGU won the Supreme Court case, every Catholic university in the country would likely have had to allow such a group. From the Church’s perspective, GU basically had to “take one for the team.”

With regards to the Hoya’s April Fools issue, I think the sanctions they received were commensurate with the offense. You may disagree, as I’m sure the Hoya staff largely does. If they have a problem with it, they can take it to court and see what happens. I don’t think the proposed GUSA changes are so much concerned with just saying something that’s offensive, per se, but rather aiming it at someone.. which I feel is generally consistent with the law.

To COL 10:

I’m referring to the GUSA Senate resolution, which would include it.

To Dave:

In that case, we should take out the ‘verbal insults, offensive graffiti or letters’ and just stick with bullying and harassment, with the added proviso given by the Office of Civil rights: “sufficiently serious (i.e., severe, persistent or pervasive) as to limit or deny a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program”

That would cover bias-related incidents while ensuring that free speech was not unduly limited or chilled, as students would be sure administrators could not use (or would have an extremely hard time using it) to justify punishing unpopular speech.

Dude, I still think you’re missing the point. Verbal insults are directed at a person. Graffiti is already the destruction of property. I don’t know what “letters” means, but I assume it has something to do with sending offensive letters to someone.

And, as far as admins go.. I’ve just proven to you from my own experience (not hypotheticals, mind you) that students have the power to violate the speech and expression policy if it’s clear that they’re doing what’s right. But if you just want to be a jackass who is trying to create an environment of fear and hatred for your fellow students, then you need to get the hell up out of here. And this is coming from someone who clearly believes in free speech.

Dave:

I’ve enjoyed the debate, but at this point I think we’ve reached the end of any further explication/agreement.

I don’t think that, as currently written by the GUSA Senate, the code will adequately reflect that this is meant about speech directed a specific person, and is sufficiently serious (either severe, persistant or pervasive) so as to limit a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program. I think as written, it could be interpreted to punish students in many of the scenarios above (where students aren’t threatening a specific person, but advocating an unpopular viewpoint).

Violating the Speech & Expression policy regarding entrance onto property to deliver a petition is one thing; violating a Category C offense a completely different horse. The administration actually punishing a student for attempting to deliver a petition would be ridiculous. Who would defend that, even among people who were against the LGBTQ center?

The administration punishing a student for writing an inflammatory, yet constitutionally-protected and non-threatening, article on that upsets a large portion of campus? Much more likely.

Again, I appreciate the debate, but I think we’ve reached the end of our productive dialogue. I think we’d just continue to argue around in circles. I’m glad we were able to illuminate some key issues, though, and I think it will be productive for those on either side of the issue to check out to at least refine, if not change, their views.

Best regards–

That should read “article on (insert controversial subject here)”