Free speech on college campuses: Not so free?

At Occidental College in California, a controversial case that started over three years ago was finally settled. The case began when a student named Jason Antebi was fired from his job as a campus radio show host. On the student run college radio station, KOXY, Antebi made some comments about certain students involved in student government, calling one a "bearded feminist" and another a "half-man, half-vagina" and yet another a "douche." After Antebi was fired, he sued the school for 10 million dollars and a new rule in the school's policy that would protect future students in similar situations from being fired. Antebi claimed that the college had violated his First Amendment rights as well as the California Leonard law which states that students who attend private schools in California are given rights similar to those granted by the First Amendment. http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1632

The California Supreme Court decided not to review Antebi's case at first and dismissed the charges on the college. But after Antebi appealed the school decided to settle by paying Antebi an undisclosed amount of money. By this time, Antebi had already graduated from the college without ever having gotten his job as radio host back.

Was the college right to fire Antebi for saying rude comments about his peers? If the Leonard law is supposed to protect students' free speech at private schools in California, why was Antebi's case so easily dismissed at first? If Antebi had not decided to appeal his case after the first court decision, this could have had dire effects for student speech, rendering the Leonard law useless. In Antebi's own words, “A student could author a potentially damaging story, be expelled in response, and then be denied recourse.” California courts should not have the Leonard law if they are not willing to uphold it when it comes to trial. http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1362&year=2006

This case is similar to the popular Don Imus controversy in which Imus was fired from his radio host job for making racist and derogatory comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. The only difference between the cases is that Imus's comments were made on an MSNBC radio show and Antebi's were made on a college radio show, and it is a big difference. Because a school's primary concern is keeping an educational and scholarly environment, I can understand why Antebi was fired. The students Antebi offended were done so on the college campus and the school was more concerned about maintaining a stable environment for all the students then about Antebi's free speech.

Because college students are adults, they typically tend to have more freedom when it comes to speech on campus then high school students on school grounds. But even the most liberal college campuses now have enforced rules regarding free speech. The Encyclopedia of Everyday Law states, "the most recent free-speech issue to hit college campuses involves so-called hate speech codes. These are codes passed by colleges that restrict speech considered offensive to other groups on campus, particularly speech that is believed to be racist or sexist."
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/student-rights-free-speech
Colleges are simply aiming for the same goal as primary education schools are. They are all trying to maintain a safe, comfortable environment as best as they can. Colleges believe it is more important for their students to be able to walk around campus without hearing hateful comments about themselves or their peers then it is to have the freedom to make those comments.

I am unsure how I feel personally about this issue. I believe free speech is important, especially on a college campus. But if the speech is hurtful and aimed at a particular person or group, and is affecting the person or groups learning experience, should it be allowed? Students go to college to learn and if they are becoming overly stressed about hateful speech, they are losing some of their focus on their education. But on the other side of the argument, free speech is a right and if college students are not allowed to speak their minds, how will they deal when they leave the campus where they are not as shielded from the hateful comments made to the public? But because schools are separate from the rest of the public, it really is up to the administrators to enforce whatever codes they deem fit.

Occidental College is not the only college feeling the restraints against free speech. In an article in USA Today, Nat Hentoff writes, "on many campuses, the right to free speech, however contentious, is under siege. The politically correct "speech codes" — forbidding speech that might offend one's race, sexual orientation, religion, et al. — have been folded into codes of conduct under the continuing assumption by some students and administrators that there is a constitutional right not to be offended." http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-18-free-speech_x.htm Hentoff strongly believes in the college students right to free speech, and she makes a good point. Speech is our right, but avoiding uncomfortable situations such as feeling offended is not. She is trying to say that while it is nice not to be offended, our right to speak our minds should come first. Hentoff is not looking at this from the angle of the school administrators, who are trying to make college a peaceful learning environment. But she does make a convincing argument. Our free speech in colleges is becoming more and more restricted every year. Who knows what new speech codes will arise in the future.


Sources:

Antebi article#1:
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1632
Antebi article#2:
http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1362&year=2006
Encyclopedia of Everyday Law article:
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/student-rights-free-speech
USA Today article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-18-free-speech_x.htm