Free speech is fundamental to the health of a college campus, and limiting it in any respect will stunt the dynamic dialogue emblematic of a university environment.
Students should not only feel safe to express their beliefs but also have the opportunity to be exposed to a wide-variety of viewpoints and perspectives without fear.
But this need for an absolute acceptance of free speech was threatened by a policy presented for debate in The GW Law School student senate.
The policy would alert the community if a “hate group,” as labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, would be participating in a campus event. Additional security would also be provided at these flagged events.
The policy was initially proposed by third-year law student Samantha Ames, after she was allegedly verbally assaulted and physically intimidated by the leader of The Family Research Council, an organization that has been branded a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
This policy, while well-intentioned, represents a dangerous attack on free speech and the exchange of ideas at the University.
The bill, of course, would not ban controversial groups. Any group invited would be welcome to speak, as long as they consent to being called a hate group. This is dangerous as the two groups vested with the power to decide who is and isn’t hateful are driven by their own ideological leanings, which interferes with their ability to objectively label others. Because of this, it is more likely that conservative groups will be labeled as hate groups rather than liberal ones. GW might be a left-leaning institution, but its students cannot support a policy that would unfairly mark some conservative groups as hateful while ignoring that groups from across the political spectrum spread hate.
The potential for censorship, diminished dialogue and limited free speech is simply too great to consider.
It is the community’s obligation to provide every student, speaker or organization an equal forum to present their opinions, no matter how controversial or “hateful” their message may be. Support for free speech means support for all speech no matter how vile or hurtful it can be. There are no clauses or qualms when supporting free speech.
The bill will likely never make it past the law school student senate, but its existence could cause some to question the University’s commitment to having a fair and open dialogue, as it is hard to separate administrator initiatives from student culture when evaluating a school.
This reputation would in turn have the effect of dissuading groups that might not be hate groups, yet are considered controversial or outspoken from coming to campus. And this would be extremely detrimental to having an open and honest discourse on campus.
The emotions that arise when these sorts of groups visit are charged and can be incendiary. But labeling an outside group as “hateful” and requiring that it has more security only takes the community’s focus away from what such a group’s visit is about: A constructive dialogue where people can come together and have a difficult but necessary conversation.
“This policy, while well-intentioned, represents a dangerous attack on free speech and the exchange of ideas at the University.”
Well said. Hopefully, even first-year law students recognize that there is no legal definition of “hate group,” which is why even the FBI does not, cannot, designate “hate groups.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a private fundraising organization with cash assets of more than $223 million dollars, uses the deliberately meaningless term “hate group” in its fundraising materials because it allows them to denigrate any group without accusing them of any actual crimes.
The SPLC has no more authority, legal or moral, to designate “hate groups” than does the SPCA.
According to the legend on the SPLC’s “Hate Map” fundraising tool, “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map
Seriously, what kind of “civil rights group” deliberately conflates six of the most fundamental Constitutionally protected First Amendment rights with “criminal acts” and “hate group activities”?
http://wp.me/pCLYZ-ce
Citizens, in general, and scholars, in particular, have an obligation to listen to opinions from across the spectrum, no matter how much one may disagree with them.
If the speakers are wrong then challenge the merits of their arguments and disprove them with facts and logic, not emotion.
Otherwise, what happens when the SPLC and the other multimillion dollar “non-profits” decide that your ideas are “hateful” and need to be stifled?
Uh, dude, if you don’t think that hate groups are something that needs to be researched and monitored in this country, we’re reading different history books.
Also, I’d respect you more if you just said you supported the FRC’s positions, as you so obviously do, instead of trying to create some sort of straw man about the SPLC–who’s lists the FBI and other government agencies use.
And what if radical mosques were declared “hate groups”? OK to monitor them too?
The two main problems with monitoring “hate groups” are that a) there’s no legal definition of the term and b) despite how most people feel about the rhetoric, these groups aren’t doing anything illegal.
Who do you propose to be in charge of designating “hate groups”? Me? You? The SPLC? Without a legal definition a “hate group” is anything the SPLC says it is.
“I know it when I see it” isn’t good enough.
The SPLC is a private fundraising organization. Most people are surprised to find out that NOT ONE of the SPLC’s top executives is a minority.
http://wp.me/pCLYZ-c6
In fact, despite being located LITERALLY in the back yard of Dr. Martin Luther King’s home church in Montgomery, the SPLC has NEVER hired a person of color to a highly paid position of authority in its entire 41 year history.
THESE are your “experts” on race relations?
This is the same “civil rights group” that told the Missouri Highway Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security that a great way to identify “domestic extremists” is to look for third-party bumper stickers on their cars.
Maybe that doesn’t scare you, but I have friends who vote Green, Libertarian and such and frankly I reserve/preserve my Constitutional right to do the same if I so choose.
Don’t be in such a hurry to give away your civil rights (and mine!) to the outfit with the slickest fundraising propaganda just because it’s easier than thinking for yourself. Democracy is hard work.
Again, what happens when the SPLC decides that there’s a quick buck to be made by outlawing your “wrong thoughts”?
Agreed, Richard. As I said, who decided that the SPLC is the chosen arbiter of “hate groups”?
Sure, they get some information from the FBI- but that only puts groups like the KKK, Black Panthers, neo-Nazis, Aryan Nation, and those that threaten violence against the Federal Government on their list. Guess what, the FBI and most police departments are also keeping an eye on these groups too because of real or threatened violence. Not for difference of philosophy.
People of faith should be wary of the SPLC however- many conscience based groups such as those that (in their opinion) espouse traditional values such as heterosexual, two-parent families as the ideal have made it on the list. Groups that lobby against abortion have also made the list. And yes, even pro-Israel groups have earned a place in the SPLC doghouse.
And what an interesting point about the lack of minorities at the SPLC. This is offensive not just in the lack of diversity at the organization, but also for the paternalistic view that it implies that “the good white man knows what is best for the poor minorities”. Racist? You decide.
Kudos to the Hatchet for a well-reasoned op-ed on this matter. More information has come out about this alleged incident and a number of witnesses (not to mention the FRC President) have reported there was no verbal harassment or physical “intimidation” (whatever that means). The incident apparently occurred in a public area, with many students present.
ADL and SPLC do some good work but, as this op-ed notes, they are both driven by a political agenda.
Why not allow students to do their own due diligence on invited speakers/orgs, rather than forcing groups to apply and broadcast a label?
So, you’re reasoning that someone telling you to never have children because your lifestyle is sinful is not threatening, just because it occurred in a public place?
And, yeah, we should definitely listen to an organization with a stated position that gay children commit suicide because they “know they’re unnatural.” Sounds like an organization who really knows how to define for us just what to find threatening or not.
1) Only a coupling of a male and female can produce children. Adoption is a different issue.
2) It is their right- and possibly their moral and religious belief to say that homosexuality is sinful. Who are you to be so sure that it is not?
3) If kids think about committing suicide at the suggestion of a group, they have far more serious problems than hearing something from a “hate group”.
Thank you, Hatchet editors, for standing up for free expression, even that which may be offensive to some.
GW is a liberal institution, and in that philosophy, has the mission to present varying points of view, and at the same time invite thoughtful debate, criticism and discussion on the merits of the given speakers. Overall, that has been the climate that I have been aware of, and during my time at GW, witnessed.
However, applying the moniker “hate group” to an organization is indeed a form of censorship. It helps to form an implied condemnation or endorsement of the group out of the gate, before students have a chance to agree or disagree with their aims.
While there are groups that are well known for generally offensive positions such as advocating violence, or racial or ethnic superiority or separatism, students have sufficient avenues through news reports and websites by and about the given group to have an idea about their stance even before going to an event attended by a representative of that group.
An even more difficult issue involves so-called “hate groups” that are branded as such because they hold a position that is morally, ethically, or religiously offensive to some. Two prime examples are organizations involved on any position in abortion rights, gay marriage, or freedom of religion within the public sphere. Some of these are indeed “hate groups” under the SPLC list. But in this case one person’s “hate group” could actually have a philosophy that clashes with one’s most core beliefs. And using only an extreme left-leaning list such as the SPLC brings up questions of fairness.
Samantha Ames- your 15 minutes of fabricated fame are up. You have your beliefs, I have mine. But neither of us have the right to squelch the other within an appropriate forum.
“Samantha Ames- your 15 minutes of fabricated fame are up.”
That is a horribly offensive thing to say about someone who is standing up against the likes of the FRC, Bud. I hope that when next you decide to stand up against injustice in your community, people treat you with the basic respect you deign to show here.
I’m sure Samantha Ames really wanted to be famous so that trolls like you could feel better about themselves by “bravely” posting misinformation on this thread.
Oh, and read the policy, it has nothing to do with free speech. In fact, your intimidation of students who are standing against hatred stands in direct contradiction to the values of “free speech” that you hold so dear.
No, Jay, Samantha is a famewhore. She took an experience, distorted it to her liking and is using it to push her agenda. This is just a step short of the Columbia professor hanging a fake noose on her door.
Reasonable people can disagree about the wording of the proposed hate speech policy, or perhaps even whether or not there should be a policy at all. Personally, as a third-year law student who has seen friends suffer at the hands of uncivil discourse, I support the policy, but I am open to respectful disagreement.
Reasonable people cannot disagree, though, about the foundation of this policy. Sam Ames was confronted and verbally harassed at our school by a person who probably wishes she was dead. Yes, it happened in public. Yes, there were people around. But if you believe those factors outweigh the gender and sexual politics that were at play and can’t see the inherent threat in this incident, then you are not a reasonable person. There is no need for the inflammatory rhetoric her, no need to personally attack Sam by calling her a “famewhore” (though that word is delightful!). If you have something reasonable and respectful to say that’s fine, but let’s cool it with the name-calling and victim-blaming.
I think this article and ESPECIALLY the comments would benefit from actually reading the policy at stake and commenting on its specific provisions, rather than reverting to insults. Reasonable minds can and have disagreed on this issue since the framing of the Constitution. Sam Ames is a reasonable person with a particular point of view. People can reasonably disagree, but calling anyone a “famewhore,” while technically protected under your right to free expression, undermines any attempt at academic discourse.
This editorial is logically flawed. The proposal does nothing to stifle speech or debate. Flagging hate groups identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a respected institution that is not ideologically driven, and warning students in advance that the group or those who come to support them may offend them, while also providing extra security, is common sense. No speech is being restricted, nor is anyone being prevented from visiting campus.
Sam Ames has turned a horrific bias attack on herself into an opportunity to make the campus community more open, more respectful and safer for everyone, including those who use freedom of speech to express bigotry. She should be applauded for her efforts, not turned into a straw woman to disagree with over an abstract non-problem of stifled speech. Thank you, Sam.
The inherent problem is that which is considered offensive. Some people may be offended by “pro-choice” groups but certainly they won’t be flagged, will they? There is clearly an underlying, one-sided agenda here so it does necessarily stifle the constitutionally protected rights of other groups by biasly flagging them.
Thanks for responding back – I welcome the opportunity to respond to this important concern. I am an activist who works for reproductive justice, and we are outright shut out of many college campuses due to their institutional biases. Far better for free speech, in my experience, is to allow free and fair debate for all speakers regardless of the content of their beliefs. I have not been offended when universities and colleges have disclosed up front that I will speak to a viewpoint on an issue considered controversial and provide additional security so all views can be safely and constructively shared.
Ah, but that is not the same as being flagged as offensive under the label “hate group”. What you have described as experiencing is far more civil and appropriate then what you support SPLC doing.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is absolutely ideologically driven, in that they have explicitly said that they will only monitor groups whose activities or membership have a “right-wing” component. They have flat-out said that they are not set up to monitor “left-wing” hate groups of any kind. You can argue about what those terms mean, but SPLC has explicitly said that they decide which groups to classify and monitor based on ideology.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299011/occupy-southern-poverty-law-center-charles-c-w-cooke
So I guess it is just to put an unborn baby into a demonic amalgam of a meat grinder and a vacuum cleaner? Is that “reproductive justice”?
Wow someone supporting that sounds pretty “violent” and “hateful”…
Sam, you need a makeover, girlfriend!!!
That hair, those clothes, heavens, they don’t work! Be beautiful and FABULOUS!
I stood by with Sam while Mr. Sprigg spewed hateful words at her, and watched while she stood by and debated with him., and tried to provide her with support the next day. What Sam did took courage, and many other students wouldn’t have been able to meet his hate with argument and logic. What Sam did exemplifies what this policy was designed to do: meet hate speech with more speech. But Sam shouldn’t have had to face that, and no student should ever have to face hate speech unprepared and unwarned.
That said reasonable people can disagree over the merits of this policy, or any policy. However, its a shame that would could have been a legitimate debate about a policy has turned into this. Comments like “famewhore” and “15 minutes are up” detract from what could otherwise been an opportunity to make this school a safe place, that was also open to free speech. Instead of debating the actual merits of a policy, people are instead making personal attacks and straw-man arguments.