The GW Law School's student senate will consider pulling its support next week for a policy proposal that would call out guest speakers for “hate speech.”
Seven law students and faculty members pitched a policy in March that would alert event-goers before "hate groups" come to campus – as defined by civil rights organizations – and call for increased security at these events. While the Student Bar Association Senate endorsed the policy at a March 19 meeting, it has since stalled.
Mike Johnson, a third-year law student and SBA senator, plans to ask for the retraction of senate's declared support of the policy at its April 10 meeting. Johnson did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday evening.
Third-year law student Samantha Ames proposed the policy following a scuffle of words after a Feb. 29 law school panel event on marriage equality that included representatives from the Family Research Council – labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for being anti-gay.
Ames noted in a letter in the law school’s student newspaper, The Nota Bene, that she was alledgedly verbally harassed and physically intimidated by senior FRC fellow Peter Sprigg after the event for expressing her support for gay rights during the forum.
Sprigg said, while they disagreed on homosexuality, “my conversation with Ms. Ames, in an open area with many other students around, was entirely civil, and no reasonable observer could have concluded otherwise.”
For the policy to move forward, a faculty committee ultimately has to sign off on the proposal after the SBA sends it to the dean.
Law School Dean Paul Schiff Berman did not take a stance on the issue and urged further discussion, adding that he did not know which way the faculty leaned.
“I think it’s useful for students to engage in difficult debates about how best to balance core values of freedom of speech and open intellectual academic discourse with the desire to maintain an academic environment where diverse perspectives are welcomed and all members of the community feel included,” Berman said.
Ira Lupu, a constitutional law scholar and the F. Elwood and Eleanor David Professor of Law, said he would be “shocked if faculty approved the proposal as it stands” because its hate group label is decided by the civil rights organizations Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, which he said have political motives.
“I think there will be overwhelming opposition to the proposition,” Lupu said. “In a free society, we don’t try to exclude people for being insulting or hateful."
Chris Wassman, public relations chair for the GW College Republicans, said his organization created its own Facebook group – currently at 37 members – to oppose any future action regarding the proposal.
“The point on our end is to give students a way to state that they believe in maintaining the ability for a diversity of viewpoints to be shared on campus,” Wassman said.
Ames said she has listened to ideas to improve the policy and expects the two sides to bridge the gap through further debate this summer and fall.
“There tends to be a knee-jerk reaction against any policy having to do with speech, but the more people find out about what this really does and where it came from, the easier it is to see how reasonable the proposal really is,” Ames said. “What we came up with is the best way we could find to protect student safety without infringing on free speech."
Incoming SBA president Michael Lueptow said he would look toward student opinion polls and open forums to weigh the policy's merit.
This post was updated on April 5, 2012 to reflect the following:
The Hatchet characterized SBA president Nicholas Nikic as wary of the proposal because the debate it caused. In fact, Nikic was not expressing his opinion and was discussing the debate.
Speaking for myself, and I am not being facetious, I think the Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group.
But Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, is not part of any hate group:
“Richard Dawkins says it outright. One wonders why so few other atheists are speaking out in the same way. Note that he does not hasten to qualify his comment by saying, “Islamic extremism” or “radical Islam.”
Dawkins: “I’m reasonably optimistic in America and Europe. I’m pessimistic about the Islamic world. I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world, and I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there.”
Narrator: “Why is it more problematic than Christianity, for instance?”
RD: “There is a belief that every word of the Koran is literally true, and there’s a kind of closemindedness which is, I think, less present in the former Christendom, perhaps because we’ve had long – I don’t know quite why – but there’s more of a historical tradition of questioning. There are people in the Islamic world who simply say, ‘Islam is right, and we are going to impose our will.’ There’s an asymmetry. I think in a way we are being too nice. I think that it’s possible to be naively overoptimistic, and if you reach out to people who have absolutely no intention of reaching back to you, then you may be disillusioned.”
Glad to see that there is overwhelming opposition to this idiotic proposal. The term hate speech is completely arbitrary, and to use the definition from organizations like the SPLC (a group that once stood for something great, and now is little more than a political advocacy group) would be entirely against the freedom of speech and discourse that should exist on every University campus.
I really sympathize with Ames, but unfortunately, when it comes to free speech, the Supreme Court has said you can only regulate the manner in which it is being dispelled, but not the message. To single out certain groups you cannot speak out against would be to regulate the message itself. The ACLU has defended the KKK’s right to a public parade under the same grounds.
“There tends to be a knee-jerk reaction against any policy having to do with speech, but the more people find out about what this really does and where it came from, the easier it is to see how reasonable the proposal really is…”
Ms. Ames’ comment reflects the same philosophy behind her proposal: we’re all just dumb, immature kids who would agree with her if we just spent the time reading her proposal or being told that a group is is “hateful.”
Ms. Ames, I’ve read your petition closely and I fully disagree with it. I am a part-time law student; I work full-time and live in the “real world” most of the day. Your proposal does nothing more than baby people — it presumes to tell them what an organization is by–ta day!–relying on another organization.
Let students form their own opinions about campus speakers by doing their own due diligence. And you can go back to confronting conservative activists and then complaining about their responses.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, while once justifiably taking on groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis, is now a left-of-center aligned group that also condemns not only groups that advocate bias violence (like the KKK and neo-Nazis) but also groups that expound philosophies contrary to their own, like the American Family Association for their opposition to issues including gay marriage.
And by whose standards do we define “hate group”? Those that advocate criminal activity, terrorism, and violence? Sure, I think almost anyone would agree on that. Contrary, even offensive ideas and philosophies? Not so much.
One of the great things about GW is its diversity of thought, and the venues provided to reasonably express these ideas. Putting a pejorative label on this speech to somehow squelch it is a move that should not be implemented without careful consideration of its effects.
Without opining on the policy itself, I would like to say something about what you think the American Family Association is. It isn’t just an anti-gay marriage group. It often presents racist points of view and uses refuted or non peer reviewed “studies” to make false claims about the gay community. It basically makes its living through defamation.
In 1954 my Social Psychology class invited the local VA head of the KKK. AS we listened to him rant about “White Supremecy” we all burst out laughing .. he was Asian!
He could not stand the laughter and ran out of the classrom. Great moment in my GW undergrad days.
No offense- but how did an Asian get into the KKK?
They all wear hoods
Just to clarify some mis-information in these comments:
(1) the SPLC and ADL hate group lists are the lists used by the FBI. They are not arbitrary and they are not politically motivated. They identify groups who encourage physical harm on other people on the basis of their membership in a minority group.
(2) GW Law is a private school and as such not bound by the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the First Amendment. @Andy – even if your assertion about how the Court has chosen to regulate speech were correct, it would be inapposite here. I’m not saying there is no merit to protecting free speech, but to say that our school is bound by Supreme Court precedent in this way is incorrect.
(3) I would challenge those opposed to the policy, as it is currently written, to identify a specific way in which it would chill free speech or restrict discourse on our campus. The policy merely requires that students be notified of these groups’ presence at our school. It also requires that a student should not be forced to attend an event, for class, at which a hate group is present.
“It also requires that a student should not be forced to attend an event, for class, at which a hate group is present.”
Hate group by what criteria? One person’s hate group may be another’s advocacy, or personal beliefs. If I have a personal moral and/or religious offense with abortion, must I sit in a lecture promoting it? Must I listen to the Nation of Islam talk about the “white devil”? What if students did hear these speeches and thoughtfully challenged the speakers?
I differ with Bonnie’s assertion that all the SPLC “hate groups” encourage violence. Many of the “religious right” groups such as the Family Research Council, and the American Family Association, along with immigration reform groups like FAIR (Foundation for Immigration Reform), while possibly advocating views offensive to some, are not known to promote violence.
The Family Research Council supported the Ugandan policy of executing homosexuals. They supported it not only in idea, but financially as well, to the tune of $25,000 encouraging Congress not to denounce it.
Not quite.
“The Tony Perkins-led FRC said it did lobby on the bill, but not to kill it – rather to change the language it contained and “to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006856-503544.html
Quite a difference between condoning executions, and having a stance that the US should not influence gay rights legislation in a foreign country. In fact, that resolution was a “symbolic gesture” with no force of law.
Not to split hairs, but Nation of Islam groups are listed by the SPLC too, Bud Fox.
Bonnie is correct. The SPLC has set a very high bar for a group to be designated as a hate group, and these groups are not to be taken lightly. Groups like the FRC do use deception and manipulation to influence policy to marginalize and cause harm to minorities.
They are absolutely politically motivated. SPLC told reporters, flat out, that they only monitor and list groups with a right-wing component and that they do not monitor left-wing groups. Argue amongst yourselves about what those terms mean, but the bottom line is that their decisions are explicitly political.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299011/occupy-southern-poverty-law-center-charles-c-w-cooke
Some of the SPLC “hate groups”. Decide for yourself.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups
gotta love the crazy lesbians at GW!
GW Hatchet please delete my comment if possible. It was rude and disrespectful. I wish to have it removed if possible. Thank you.
Wow.
Are you talking “gay/ bi till graduation” or real lesbians? The “bi to grads” were so much fun…
The proposed policy, if stated correctly in this article, “would alert event-goers before “hate groups” come to campus – as defined by civil rights organizations – and call for increased security at these events.”
Professor Lupu is quoted as saying, “In a free society, we don’t try to exclude people for being insulting or hateful.” He is, of course, correct. However, I see nothing in the proposal, as it is described in this article, which would “exclude people,” nor would in any way jeopardize free speech. I also fully agree with the College Republicans, who purport to “believe in maintaining the ability for a diversity of viewpoints to be shared on campus.” But there is nothing in the proposed policy which would in any way undermine this laudable goal.
As a member of “a free society,” I would hope to have the right not to be required (i.e., forced) to attend a lecture being given by an individual who has repeatedly engaged in hate speech, although said individual is certainly free to “share” his/her “viewpoint” with attendees. As a member of “a free society,” I would like to believe that I possess sufficient autonomy to be able to exercise my own judgement as to whether the SPLC’s assessment accords with my own. Whether or not I choose to attend, however, I believe it would be prudent to arrange for extra security to help prevent property damage or injuries which, it could reasonably be argued, would be a forseeable consequence of the reactions (be they positive or negative) of an inflamed audience.
The first amendment does not require that we be forbidden to exercise our own good judgement.