'Hate speech' policies ineffective

By Roey Rahmil

Outrage. Protest. Discussion. Debate. If the recent theme party controversy has had any positive effect, it is the campus-wide dialogue on racism and stereotypes that has erupted. But that discussion is hurt, not enhanced, by the administration attempting to regulate offensive speech or conduct. So-called "hate speech" policies are counterproductive and degrade the freedom of expression that an educational institution should foster.

And just so my argument is clear, I'm not saying that the university should condone offensive messages. I think the university has an obligation to articulate its principles (for the sake of the campus community and the school's reputation). I also think the university must intervene to stop threatening behavior or speech from taking place because no one can learn when one's safety is at risk.

But there is a world of difference between what happened at the "south of the border" theme party and threats of physical violence. We need to take the theme party for what it was: offensive conduct that used stereotypes to mock an ethnic group. Even if it was not intended to be offensive, I think it is perfectly reasonable to interpret it as an insult. And campus groups are absolutely within their rights to take action. It should be clear that I believe the offensive actions at the theme party were wrong. But not all wrong things ought to be disciplined.

The school should definitely respond somehow. But opposing an action is different from punishing it. Countering offensive speech or conduct makes the school one participant in the discussion, albeit a powerful one. Punishing it stops important discussion from ever taking place.

One of the university's primary responsibilities is to maintain an atmosphere of free discussion and debate. In previous articles I've mentioned John Stuart Mill's "marketplace of ideas," and I think it's absolutely crucial here. The debate it provides is essential to finding truth and, at the very least, deciding what ideas to reject as false.

Restricting certain kinds of speech limits that debate. First, hate speech does not necessarily stand on its own -- it can often occur in the context of a political or philosophical discussion. When it unfortunately plays a role, it deserves to be called out and refuted. But banning the speech not only precludes hate speech, it chills the political discussion altogether. For a society that places a high value on democratic decision-making, that cost is just too high -- especially within an academic institution.

It's true that the party was not really a speech act. But the offensive costumes portrayed a viewpoint, and I think it's important to recognize that.

Moreover, restrictions aren't the best way to combat hate speech. Banning ideas means they can't be discussed and they can't be refuted. But fostering education means that those who use hate speech will face a powerful opponent: groups and individuals who hold different opinions. But if that discussion is stopped, some will retain their ignorant attitudes. And because such feelings will be shoved beneath the surface, it will be harder to address issues of racism and bias.

The university community needs to work to solve the problems the theme party exposed. Such a solution, if possible, can't just come from the top down. You can't legislate respect or mandate an end to racism -- that can only occur through persuasion and education, which the school is in a key position to facilitate. The school should help raise the level of debate, not artificially squelch certain viewpoints. And while the theme party was by no means a cogent form of expression, the attitudes it portrays deserve to be listened to.

Roey Rahmil is a senior political science and philosophy double major.