Censorship still a hotly debated campus topic


How can universities distinguish between free speech and bullying?

Censorship—the word itself carries a negative connotation to most people, who associate it with outlandish speech codes, banned materials, and, perhaps most importantly, banned ideas. Campus censorship in particular remains a hot-button topic for colleges and universities—especially as they struggle to define where free speech ends and bullying begins.

The University of Delaware experienced this issue first-hand earlier this year when campus officials addressed bullying in the university’s student code of conduct.

The newly-added anti-bullying prohibitions in the University of Delaware’s student code of conduct were first exposed in June by Samantha Harris, director of speech code research at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

Delaware’s new guidelines define bullying as “any deliberately hurtful behavior, usually repeated over time, with the desired outcome of frightening, intimidating, excluding or degrading a person.” Teasing, spreading rumors or private information, physical and verbal assaults are some of the specific behaviors which define bullying under the policy.

“No one likes bullying, but most conduct that could be called bullying on the college level is already illegal,” Harris said. “This policy goes much too far by prohibiting constitutionally protected speech.”

In a letter to University of Delaware President Patrick Harker, Harris asked that the policy be purged from the student code of conduct.  The code already categorizes bullying behaviors such as stalking, harassment, and intimidation as punishable offenses. Such activities are additionally indictable under state and federal laws.

Harris and FIRE representatives concur that the policy’s broad language is detrimental to students and obstructs their First Amendment right to free speech. For instance: under the new policy, is ridiculing a political candidate considered bullying? Are parody and satire to be limited or expunged from course curriculum?

Harris did not receive a direct response from President Harker, though the policy has since been removed from the code of conduct and is currently pending review in the Office of Student Life.

“UD remains deeply committed to ensuring that our campus is safe and welcoming to all people, and that all students and groups are protected from harassment and behavior intended to threaten or intimidate them,” said a university statement addressing the issue. “We invite students concerned about bullying behavior to contact the Office of the Dean of Students.”

“On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful or disturbing that it may not be expressed,” says the American Association of University Professors’ statement on freedom of expression and campus speech codes. That statement, in full, can be found here.

Censorship’s relevance

FIRE President Greg Lukianoff notes that campus censorship is not only a relevant problem, but that it is more severe than most people recognize.

In his recent book, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate, Lukianoff expresses grave concerns associated with campus censorship. “At a certain point, the public thought that [speech codes] had gone away,” Lukianoff said.

But Lukianoff, who is also a lawyer predominately focused on First Amendment issues, said he believes that young Americans frequently face free speech obstacles, though they generally lack the uproar that possessed former generations.

“Previous generations would have rejected [speech codes] and rejected them loudly,” he said.

This begs the question: are today’s college students becoming lackadaisical about their civil rights?

“We live in a tame and regulated society and it’s not like K-12 is teaching students a lot about what free speech means. Student journalists get in trouble for writing about teen pregnancy or the legalization of marijuana or anything viewed as ‘racy’ that journalism students view as important,” he said. “Universities take advantage of students not having learned a good deal about civics.”

The role of polarization

Lukianoff cites America’s current staunch polarization as a contributing factor to unwarranted censorship. Indeed, the severity of one’s beliefs intensifies if one mostly associates with others who share them, he said.

“I see this happening in campuses and in our country,” Lukianoff said. “Higher education isn’t the sole cause to this discourse and polarization, but our best way to remedy it—a simple intellectual habit that would make society so much better if it were taught—is educated people seeking out other intelligent people that they disagree with.”

Engaging in conversations with people who disagree with one’s beliefs would be beneficial to everyone, Lukianoff believes, and would increase tolerance across America. College campuses would be an ideal environment to set the wheels into motion.

“This will harm us,” Lukianoff said. “When discourse suffers, we all suffer and we don’t look at things as rationally as we potentially could. Free speech on campus is in more trouble than people think, but it doesn’t have to be this way.”

Sign up for our newsletter

Newsletter: Innovations in K12 Education
By submitting your information, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Oops! We could not locate your form.

Sign up for our newsletter

Newsletter: Innovations in K12 Education
By submitting your information, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.