SPEAK OUT  
line decor
  
line decor
 
 


 

 
 
CURRENT ISSUES

 

 

Issue: Free Speech/Hate Speech

University's Establishment of Speech and Expression Task Force
President Dennis Holtschneider formed the Speech and Expression Taskforce for DePaul in April 2006 (see Exhibit A). The Taskforce was formed in the context of a series of hate-related activities and events occurring at DePaul since the Fall of 2004, but most particularly during the academic year 2005-2006 (see Hate Speech Timeline). The Charge to the Committee (Exhibit A), however, does not mention this historical context. The Taskforce then developed a set of Guiding Principles (see Exhibit B, with updated version Exhibit C) to be used in guiding DePaul's policies and the DePaul community with regard to these issues. We believe that these “Guiding Principles”, developed by the Taskforce, must be evaluated within the context of ongoing hate speech incidents and events and their impact on historically excluded, disenfranchised, and marginalized groups at DePaul, including most particularly those who fall within one or more of the following groups -- people of color, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and transgender community, and women. With this in mind, we offer the following critical analysis of the "Guiding Principles" in the hopes of generating a dialogue around the principles that centers the experiences and perspectives of those most negatively impacted by hate speech and actions.

Exhibit A Speech and Expression Charge

Exhibit B Draft of Guiding Principles (Drafted 1/26/07)

Exhibit C 2nd Draft of Guiding Principles (Drafted 1/9/08)


Difficult Dialogues Critical Analysis of Guiding Principles

by Professor Charles Lawrence and by Professor Sumi Cho

On April 13, 2007 a Small Workshop with Professor Charles Lawrence (see bio below) was held with university decision-makers and stakeholders involved in helping to develop "The Guiding Principles." Below are Professor Lawrence's specific points/responses to the Speech and Expression Task Force development of Guiding Principles:

1) The Speech and Expression Task Force seems to have proceeded in a lawyer-like way without educating the community and using discourse in the community to learn about divergent voices;

2) In the Guiding Principle (GP) there needs to be a clear inclusion of community's that have been historically excluded from attending educational institutions and are underrepresented at the university;

3) In the GP the University needs to affirm its morality for inclusion of historically disadvantaged/underrepresented groups;

4) The GP needs to include an educational component to recognize not only the injury but understand the group/individual pain caused by the injury--injury and hate speech have to be on the table simultaneously.

5) The GP needs to include an amelioration/reparation policy for university resources to be used to fund educational curriculum to address the injury and harm caused by hate speech. These funds can serve as a clear message and perhaps deterrent to potential perpetrators of the GP in terms of what the university will do when the GP is violated.

Professor Charles Lawrence, III teaches at the Georgetown University Law Center. He has authored numerous articles on race relations, antidiscrimination law, equal protection and the First Amendment, and a leading voice in Critical Race Theory. He is co-author of The Bakke Case: The Politics of Inequality (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979); Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment (Westview Press, 1993); and We Won't Go Back: Making the Case for Affirmative Action (Houghton Mifflin, 1997). Prof. Lawrence has served the Board of Education for District of Columbia Public Schools and on the boards of National Public Radio and Public Radio International.

In Spring of 2007, Professor Sumi Cho of DePaul's Law School (see bio below) developed the following analysis for critical consideration of the "Guiding Principles":

Bold = language to deter "free speech" transgressions

Underline = language to deter "assaultive speech" transgressions

Italics = indeterminate concepts or concepts that must be understood in context that could be interpreted as deterring either free speech or assaultive speech transgressions.

Free speech and expression are central to the purpose of the university. Research, scholarship, and education are impossible without open discourse and robust debate. The exercise of reason depends upon one's ability both to express and to listen respectfully and critically to competing arguments. We aspire to be a community marked by compassion and mutual respect, in which we never lose sight of the potential effects, both beneficial and harmful, of our words. Yet by remaining open to a broad range of ideas and opinions--even those that may appear to some detestable, uncomfortable, or false--we foster mutual understanding, test our beliefs, and create the best conditions for discovering the truth. Intrinsic to our belief in the value of inclusive conversation is a commitment to the right of speakers to voice their viewpoints even at the risk of controversy, and a correlative respect for the ability of listeners to respond with their own words, or to choose to turn away.

DePaul's vital and distinctive Catholic and Vincentian mission makes free expression particularly important at this university. Our mission places the highest priority on instruction and learning, activities that are immeasurably enriched by exposure to differing points of view. Our mission serves to foster a community of diverse beliefs and values in order to serve the common good inside and outside the university; such a community cannot thrive without full and open communication. And, above all, our mission strives to ennoble the God-given dignity of each person. That dignity depends in no small measure upon the individual's freedom to give voice to his or her beliefs. Definitions for Reflecting on the proposed "Guiding Principles"

Two Definitions of and Approaches to "free speech" for Discussion:

"Hegemonic free speech"
= An approach to free speech that draws upon the "free marketplace of ideas" framing or assumption, that presumes that the market is "free" and that access to that marketplace is equally available to all groups, including those groups, such as people of color, women, GLBT people, religious minorities, that have been historically excluded and contemporarily disadvantaged. The answer to "hate speech" or "assaultive speech" under this approach is merely more speech or "choosing" to disengage.

"Transformative free speech" = An approach to free speech that is historically-contingent and power-sensitive that seeks affirmatively to incorporate into the public square, those ideas that have been historically excluded, disenfranchised, or marginalized in a particular society or context, and to be mindful of the contemporary power imbalances in the existing debate or discussion that prevent those historically disenfranchised and contemporarily marginalized from coming to voice. The answer to "assaultive speech" under this approach is acknowledging and ameliorating not only individual, but also institutional and cultural responsibility for an environment that discourages enfranchising the disenfranchised and continues a tradition and contemporary practice of exclusion and marginalization.

Professor Sumi Cho Professor Cho employs a critical race feminist approach to her work on affirmative action, sexual harassment, legal history, and civil rights. She was the principal investigator for a Civil Liberties Public Education Fund grant on the first coordinated legal research on Japanese American interment, redress, and reparations. The AALS Minority Groups section honored her with the first Junior Faculty Award. Professor Cho has served as a visiting professor at the University of Michigan and University of Iowa law schools. She currently serves on the Board of Directors for LatCrit. Professor Cho holds a J.D. and a Ph.D. in Ethnic Studies from the University of California at Berkeley
  


 

 


Please click here to view the
Hate Speech Timeline
.

Difficult Dialogues Committee
Timeline of Events

"Privilege nurtures blindness to those without
the same privileges."
-- Chandra Talpade Mohanty