Introduction
A speech code refers to a regulation or rule that restricts or limits speech beyond certain legal level and, therefore, limits the freedom of speech. Speech codes are common in work places, universities and other private organizations. Usually, the main purpose of the speech codes is to suppress forms of social discourse or hate speech that is perceived to be inappropriate for the implementers. The issue of speech codes in universities has sparked opposition from the students. This has been motivated by a desire from the students to enjoy the rights of free expression and speech that other people in the world enjoy outside the academic institutions. In America, the Free Speech Movement (FSM) was formed at the UCLA Berkeley University in order to push for the removal of speech codes put in place to counter the cases of hate speech.
In America, the higher education board put in place speech codes with an assumption that university students are not mature enough to take obligations on full adult rights and responsibilities. This in turn curtailed student’s freedom of speech (Uelmen & Gerald, 1992). Speech codes do not take into consideration the functions of universities as the database of knowledge. The assumptions set forward to elaborate the role of universities was put forward by the university of California president, which stated that; “the university's purpose is to find out the truth and to transmit information and to train students in the process whereby the truth is made known..the university is founded upon faith in intelligence and experience and it must defend its free operation." (Downs, 2005). In addition, Berkeley political scientist, Albert Lepawsky wrote, “University prime mission resides not in political activity but the cultivation of the intellectual freedoms" (Downs, 2005). The speech code in the university barred the students from civil liberties and political freedoms. Student activist and some of the founders of free speech movement declared that, the constitutionally protected freedom should apply to everyone in the campus and off campus to ensure that the university administration does not deny a student the fundamental right of civil liberty. This was done specifically to counter the threats to free speech in the universities.
Though the main aim of the speech code in universities is to prevent the use of abusive language, studies conducted on some cases indicate that there are better alternatives to be used in dealing with matters concerning hate speech. One case study was carried out to show different forms of the politics of civil liberty in campus. In his book Downs, (2005), studied some cases experienced in the universities. First, he studied cases involving politics around a sexual misconduct policy by Columbia’s university. The purpose of the policy is to urge the victims to present their charges, but according to (Downs, 2005) the policy denied the accused of the due process. Another example studied by (Downs, 2005) is a code set by the University of Wisconsin in response to controversial faculty speeches. The code made expressive behavior punishable if it is seen to be lowering the dignity of certain demographically defined groups.
For institutions of higher learning such as universities to achieve their general mission, free exchange of ideas becomes a crucial consideration. In regards to this, the most important point is; ”a problem arises when philosophical and political differences are dealt with not by discussion and debate but by the recourse or reference to coercive, punitive measures and powers that in effect ‘criminalize’ disagreement,” (Downs, 2005).
There is always a natural opposition to any speech, irrespective of what the speech is all about. Therefore, universities codes will not efficiently work as individual analysis of any given speech may take all directions. Limiting the freedom of speech in universities is a mask of the power to block ideas. Mostly, classroom practices involve careless and insensitive remarks that are justified irrespective of the contents in it. These kinds of remarks to some extent are neutral in the face of the audience; it does not take any kind of “political correctness” and does not favor those in power (Uelmen & Gerald, 1992). Introduction of speech codes in the classroom environment may limit the forms of remarks and in that case suppress intellectual development that is the main purpose of the university.
Misinterpretation of code speech makes the university policies ineffective. Errors arising from the bad analysis of the code have received criticism from the students. For example, in the “water buffalo” case where a freshman faced expulsion for calling African American sorority members “water buffalo”, because they were making many noises disturbing his sleep in the middle of night. The charged student’s intention was not discriminatory; rather the word he used was slang for insulting a person (Downs, 2005). The statement was interpreted in several ways. Some saw it as a general insult while others saw it as racist. This raised a question on how far interpretation can go when implementing such speech codes.
Minority protection in campus is justified; however, codified security may result to injustice. Codified protection does not provide an environment for the intellectual to develop a tolerance culture. Furthermore, speech codes are most at times not enforced impartially, rather they serve to discriminate and punish unconstitutionally those individuals who do not achieve political correctness standards.
Between 1985 and 1990, the studies showed that, campus harassment cases increased by 400% and that most of the harassment cases go unreported (Uelmen & Gerald, 1992). This brings questioning to the effectiveness of speech codes in the universities, in addition to denying the students a paramount civil liberty.
Conclusion
The wider university student society is supportive of free speech in the universities. The students and free speech movement agents going public to address problems is a necessary step rather than betrayal of university principles. An attempt to internally solve a problem by making policies that limit students’ rights to speech is counter-productive since it does not provide a permanent solution to the problem. The free speech movement advocate for an informal way of dispute resolution, unless, where real intimidation or harm has occurred. Furthermore, civil climates in campus should be established informally by adopting policies that promote tolerance and establishment of informal networks that increase support and mutual respect.
References
Donald Alexander Downs (2005). Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uelmen & Gerald (1992). The Price of Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes. Murkkula Center for Applied Ethics.
