Expert: Michael Troy - 3/29/2005

Question
Hello my name is Lakeisha Stevens and I attend Chabot College in
California.  I am writing a argumentative essay about "free speech" and I
would like  to ask a question, If that is ok.  We have read "Should this
Student have been Expelled" by author Nat Hentoff and it arises some
good questions.  If you havent read the essay it's about a boy who was
expelled from Brown University for using racial comments to other
students, but see this was not his first time harrassing other students. The
president at Brown University didnt feel that it was right to expell him
because it was free speech, not his action.  However, in Brown  
University code book there was something about actions, but not speech. But my
assignment is to interview a person/business and ask them what should
and shouldnt constitute free speech in a academic (college) or
professional (work) environment and why? I  really appreciate your time.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
Lakeisha Stevens  

Answer
Hi Lakeisha,

I can't say that I have read the essay in question, although I am very familiar with Nat Hentoff and am almost always in agreement with his views on free speech.

As a legal matter, it is my view that private schools and private employers should not be bound by the First Amenment (that is also the view of the Courts).  Free speech rights only apply to government entities, not to private organizations which should have the freedom to set whatever rules they think best for their students or employees.

That said, I also think it is a very good idea that most employers and more importantly schools should maintain an evironment that is as open as possible to the values behind free speech.  A university that tries to protect students from the full diversity of viewpoints and ideas, even racist or hurtful ideas, is not doing those students any favors.  College is exactly the time to confront all sorts of ideas, even bad or hurtful ones.  Also, the way to deal with racists is to confront the ideas themselves, not to punish the speaker for having an unacceptable idea.  Isolating racists like that only forces them to band together in fringe areas where their ideas often become more dangerous and radical.  Engagement often forces them to give up or at least moderate their views.

There are times when speech can be action.  For example, if a student follows someone around constantly shouting an expletive at them, that would be harrassment for which there should be action.  But in that case, the content of the speech is not relevant.  If the speaker was following someone around saying "I love the USA" that would be just as annoying and harrassing.  Similarly, if a student constantly disrupts classes and won't let a teacher teach or speaks loudly in a library where students are trying to study, that would also be actionable.  In all those cases, however, it is the use of noise, not the content of the ideas that is the issue.  Content based discrimiation in punishing speech is usually a mistake.

I hope this helps!
- Mike