Free Speech and Hate Speech on Campus

By Thomas Langer

Stonehill College News Blog Journalist

EASTON—Stonehill College freshman Ian Anderson said he thinks that the confusion around hate speech and free speech has stymied speaker invitations and conversations.

“I think hate speech is terrible and I do not want to see it on my campus. However, I don’t want it preventing me from hearing someone on my campus speak. I’m in college. I’m here to learn and discuss and debate,” said Anderson, a member of the College Democrats.

With a growing awareness of hate speech, many people are beginning to question what does and does not count as free speech. 

Anderson and that he thinks this confusion has led to students not inviting controversial speakers to campuses. He said that while he doesn’t want to promote hate speech, he also does not to shy away from difficult opinions just because they could be offensive.

The debate over free speech and hate speech has only grown more complex over the years. Recently, President Trump’s new executive order has attempted to address the issue in public universities, promising to cut off federal aid to any public college that prevents free speech. This order was met with mixed emotions from the public.

To some, it was a victory, ensuring the protection of their right to debate and learn on campus. To others, this decision was a tragedy, as it allowed the continuation of hateful and discriminatory speech on a college where students say they are supposed to feel safe.

To some students, such as freshman Keara Jordan, colleges should firmly limit hate speech. She said this is the best option, as it protects her classmates from discrimination. 

“I am totally against hate speech,” Jordan said. “I’ve heard people get called some terrible things and we’ve all heard about what happened here on campus in the fall. I’m for safe spaces and limiting free speech if need be. I don’t want people to be banned from speaking but if the school or even government feels they need to prevent someone from saying something hateful I fully support their ability to do so.” 

Jordan ended the interview with one final statement.

“We need to remember that people kill themselves because of hate speech, and they kill others as well,” she said. 

However, to some, the issue of determining hate speech proves more complicated than one might think.

A 2018 study in an article from Psychological Science depicts the issues within labeling hate speech. The was study conducted by two Cornell researchers and psychologists, Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams, who argued for a psychological approach to viewing hate speech. 

The article also included smaller studies such as one from the Cato Institute that found:

·             40 percent would ban a speaker who says men on average are better than women at math. 

·             49 percent would ban speech that criticizes police. 

·             41 percent would ban speakers who say undocumented immigrants should be deported. 

·             51 percent said it was OK to prevent others from hearing a speaker.

The paper as a whole argued that one could never ban hate speech because of bias when it comes to understanding data. The researchers claimed that every group of people would view something as “hate speech” and all speech would need to be limited.

Another survey within the article studied by the two researchers showed a film of a 1951 football game—Princeton versus Dartmouth—to two groups: Princeton fans and Dartmouth boosters. Each team’s supporters saw the majority of flagrant violations as having been committed by opposing players.

This study illustrates the issues that arise via “hate speech” and the potential problems that could come from blocking free speech on college campuses. The psychologists behind this survey argued in favor of free speech and its protection on campus, public or private.

However, Keith Lefrancois, a psychologist working at a France-based company called Neotys, had a different opinion and said some limits are necessary.

 “Sure, everyone’s going to have bias on issues,” Lefrancois said. “But there are statements that will upset certain groups more than others. When hateful language is directed towards large groups or disenfranchised people, it seems clear to me that that’s hate speech.” 

Overall, Lefrancois said that though bias exists, it does not heavily impact society’s ability to determine hate speech. Moreover, the survey and Lefrancois’ view represent the divide between people everywhere when it comes to describing hate speech and the matter’s overall complexity. 

Overall, the relationship between free speech and hate speech remains confusing to most.

Communications major Fiona O’Brien illustrates how many students just don’t know what to think of the issue of free speech today.

“It’s all super confusing to me,” O’Brien said. “I don’t know what I can and cannot say. I don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings. But isn’t is unfair to me if I’m not allowed to speak my mind?”