I don’t know about other people, but when I’m not feeling particularly social I make sure not to wear a shirt with my college’s name on it. Because when you are wearing your school's gear, people seem to always want to stop and talk to you about it. Usually because a family member or they themselves attended. The conversations usually last a few minutes, during which they tell you how much the campus has changed, and then politely ends.
A few days ago at a coffee shop in Hingham I was stopped, as usual, in my "Stonehill" t-shirt. The culprit this time was an older gentleman, not the least bit concerned with being impolite, who asked me point blank about speech codes at Stonehill.
Unable to make my escape I decided to humor him. What ensued was a 10-minute conversation about my experience on campus with so called “politically correct” culture, college speech codes, and “safe spaces.” All while my coffee was getting cold.
Don’t get me wrong, the issues surrounding “ speech codes” are very very important. In fact an argument can be made that so called “PC culture,” and how to approach it in the classroom is the biggest issue currently facing academia. Often times college administrators are accused of avoiding having larger campus conversations addressing concerns about free speech on campus.
In spite of this trend, Stonehill College has made multiple attempts to talk about this complex and controversial topic. After last year’s events at Mizzou and Yale the college hosted some discussions on race and free speech. Additionally, the topic was addressed multiple times in the Political Science department’s "All Things Politics" discussion series.
At these discussions, many students supported the codes enacted by the office of community standards at Stonehill. These policies include prohibiting racially sensitive Halloween costumes and establishing reporting requirements for micro-aggressions and other bias incidents. Supporters argue that these steps are necessary to prevent hate crimes and create a safe and inclusive campus environment for all students. Opponents see such policies as limiting to their personal freedom of speech and in conflict with the traditional principles underlying academia.
During this period, and throughout these discussions, the college attempted to take a position somewhere in the middle of these two arguments. Although the administration does take hate crimes and bias incidents seriously, it also stresses that the system in place affords students due process if they are accused of these violations.
Yet as the rules stand, the college still has a wide berth in deciding how to deal with potentially hateful free speech. When push comes to shove both opponents and proponents of the speech codes trust that the college will support their position. Without some major incident to test these policies it’s unknown whether the college would prioritize maintaining a safe space on campus over an individual’s unfettered freedom of speech, or vice versa.
You might be thinking: Don’t we have freedom of speech automatically? Doesn’t the first amendment guarantee us this right on campuses? The answer is both yes and no.
Yes we have freedom of speech, but only from government and its associated institutions. For example, the federal government can’t pass laws banning flag burning because it falls within the acceptable definition of ‘political free speech.’
As it relates to academia this right applies to state colleges and universities. As associated government institutions they are required to adhere strictly to the first amendment’s protection of political speech.
The tricky part is private colleges and universities. Institutions like Stonehill are not government operated and therefore students are not protected by the bill of rights unless the college says so. In essence, Stonehill is perfectly within its rights as a private entity to prioritize protecting students from potentially hateful speech, even if it means punishing a student for expressing their political beliefs.
At the time of my encounter with the older Hingham gentleman I had known this, and regardless of my belief on “speech codes” and “PC culture” I accepted it in the context of Stonehill College. But before I was able to leave he mentioned something that changed that.
He laid out an argument that because institutions like Stonehill receive federal and state funds that they must in tern adhere to first amendment. If they didn’t, he claimed, the federal government was within it’s right to stop sending money to the school.
Before I would have thought his argument was crazy, but he did seem to make sense. Title IX, a section of a larger federal law, prohibits private institutions from discriminating on the basis of sex. If they do they can expect to lose all federal financial assistance. This included grants, loans and work-study funds, creating a dis-incentive that would keep large groups of students form even applying to the institution. Similarly, colleges in states where medical or recreational marijuana is legal can also face a loss of federal funds if weed is allowed on campus, as it is illegal on the federal level.
It’s not hard to imagine a similar law being enacted by Congress, given the political will of course. There is also a chance that the courts could interpret existing laws in a way to force such institutions to protect individual free speech or risk losing federal funding. Such a law or ruling would be a major victory for opponents of speech codes, yet a massive defeat for supporters of bans on insensitive or hateful speech.
This raises additional legal concerns though. Would such a law be unconstitutional and violate Stonehill’s freedom as a private association? Would it open the door for greater discrimination of minority groups on college campuses?
No matter where you stand on the issue one thing is certain, the controversy surrounding free speech on campus isn’t going away, and will likely intensify in the years to come.
