Can Public Universities Expel For Hate Speech?

The question of whether a public university can expel a student for hate speech is a complex one, involving First Amendment rights, the nature of the speech, and the setting in which it occurs. While hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, there are certain contexts in which it may be restricted or result in disciplinary action. For instance, if hate speech occurs in the classroom, it could interfere with a student's access to education and potentially qualify as a Title IX violation. Additionally, if the speech creates a hostile work environment for employees, it may be interpreted as workplace harassment and fall outside the protections of the First Amendment.

Public universities, as government institutions, are generally bound by the First Amendment and cannot censor or punish individuals for engaging in speech that is protected. However, universities also have a duty to ensure a safe and inclusive learning environment for all students. This creates a delicate balance between upholding free speech rights and addressing instances of hate speech on campus.

Hate speech as workplace harassment

Hate speech in the workplace can be considered a form of harassment and is therefore prohibited by law. Workplace harassment law is a speech restriction that goes beyond slurs, hardcore pornography, and repeated vulgar sexual propositions. It can also suppress political statements, religious proselytizing, legitimate art, sexually-themed jokes, and other kinds of speech that are generally seen as being entirely constitutionally protected.

The legal definition of "harassment" includes speech or conduct that is "severe or pervasive" enough to create a "hostile or abusive work environment" based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, military membership or veteran status, sexual orientation, marital status, political affiliation, criminal record, occupation, citizenship status, personal appearance, tobacco use outside work, Appalachian origin, receipt of public assistance, or dishonourable discharge from the military.

Hate speech in the workplace can take many forms, including:

• Pressure for sexual favours
• Leaving pornographic material on someone's desk or work area
• Touching, "goosing", patting, hugging, or leaning against someone
• Leering, whistling, catcalls, or howling
• Using demeaning terms such as "sweetheart", "babe", or "honey"
• Telling sexual jokes
• Posting cartoons, posters, or drawings of a sexual or insulting nature
• Asking personal questions, telling lies, or spreading rumours about someone's social or sex life
• Making sexual remarks or gestures
• Actual or attempted sexual assault

Hate speech as a true threat

Hate speech is a complex issue that has been the subject of much debate and legal interpretation. While it is generally protected by the First Amendment, there are certain exceptions where hate speech can be considered a "true threat".

In the context of public universities, the question of whether a student can be expelled for hate speech has been controversial. Some argue that public universities may not expel students for racist or hateful speech under the First Amendment. However, there are exceptions to this protection, and hate speech that rises to the level of a "true threat" may cross the line into unlawful territory.

A "true threat" is defined as a specific threat of violence directed towards a person or group. In the context of hate speech, this could include inciting imminent violence or directly threatening to cause harm to an individual or group based on their race, religion, skin colour, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin.

The determination of whether hate speech constitutes a "true threat" depends on the specific context, content, and intent of the speech in question. For example, in the case of the University of Oklahoma, two students were expelled for leading a racist chant. While the university president cited the racist content of the speech as the reason for the expulsion, the students could argue that their speech did not fall under the "true threat" exception and was therefore protected by the First Amendment.

The interpretation of what constitutes a "true threat" can be challenging and subjective. Each case must be evaluated individually, considering the specific circumstances and potential impact on the targeted group or individual.

In summary, while hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, public universities must be cautious when considering expulsion for such speech. The "true threat" exception allows for the punishment of hate speech that crosses the line into inciting imminent violence or directly threatening harm. Each case must be carefully evaluated to ensure that the freedom of speech is balanced with the need to protect individuals and groups from harm.

Hate speech as fighting words

Hate speech is a contentious issue in the context of free speech, especially in educational institutions. While public universities cannot expel students for racist speech, the matter of hate speech as "fighting words" is a little more complex.

The concept of "fighting words" in the legal context was first defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). In this case, a Jehovah's Witness named Walter Chaplinsky was arrested for cursing at a local marshal, which was deemed a breach of the peace. Chaplinsky argued that the law was too vague, but the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed his conviction, stating that "fighting words" are not protected by the First Amendment. Justice Frank Murphy described "fighting words" as:

> ...those [words] which by their very utterance inflict injury or cause an immediate breach of the peace."

The Court further clarified that fighting words are not essential to any exposition of ideas and carry little social value, with any benefit derived from them being outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

In the decades following Chaplinsky, the Supreme Court has refined the definition of "fighting words" through various cases. In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Court narrowed the scope, distinguishing between words that produce a clear and present danger (unprotected) and those that invite dispute or unrest (protected). The Court further held in Feiner v. People of State of New York (1951) that incitement of a riot that creates a clear and present danger is not protected by the First Amendment.

In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court redefined "fighting words" as "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." This case involved symbolic speech, where the burning of the U.S. flag was not considered to constitute fighting words.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Supreme Court emphasised that even if words are deemed "fighting words", the First Amendment will protect the speech if the restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination. The Court refused to affirm a conviction under the fighting words doctrine, finding that the law in question was too broad and constituted viewpoint discrimination.

In summary, while hate speech may fall under the category of "fighting words" in certain contexts, the Supreme Court has placed important limitations on this doctrine to protect free speech. The distinction lies in whether the speech constitutes a direct personal insult or incitement to violence, and whether it creates a clear and present danger. Educational institutions must, therefore, carefully consider these nuances when addressing hate speech on campus.

Hate speech as a viewpoint

Hate speech is a highly contested issue in the United States, with no single, consistent definition. While it is generally understood as speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on characteristics such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation, the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement" makes it a complex issue.

In the context of public universities, the question of whether hate speech can be grounds for expulsion becomes even more nuanced. On the one hand, public universities are bound by the First Amendment, which protects freedom of expression. Courts have consistently ruled that restrictions on hate speech would conflict with the First Amendment, and therefore, hate speech alone is constitutionally protected. This means that public universities cannot expel students solely based on their expression of hate speech.

However, it is important to note that the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment is not absolute. While universities must adhere to the First Amendment, they also have an obligation to create a safe and inclusive learning environment for all members of the campus community. This means that while hate speech itself may be protected, any expression that constitutes a true threat, incitement to imminent lawless action, discriminatory harassment, or defamation can be punished. Universities may expel students if their speech crosses this line and violates the rights or safety of others.

The distinction between protected hate speech and punishable expression that incites violence or causes harm can be challenging to navigate. Ultimately, each case will depend on the specific circumstances and the discretion of the university and the courts. While public universities cannot expel students solely for their views, even if those views are hateful, they have a responsibility to maintain a safe and respectful environment for all students.

In summary, while hate speech as a viewpoint is generally protected by the First Amendment, public universities have the challenging task of balancing this protection with their obligation to create a safe and inclusive learning environment. The line between protected speech and punishable expression is often blurred, and universities must carefully consider the impact of hateful speech on their campus communities while respecting the constitutional rights of their students.

Hate speech and the First Amendment

The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, but what happens when that speech is hateful? The answer is complicated, especially when it comes to public universities, which are bound by the First Amendment.

Public Universities and the First Amendment

Public universities are considered a wing of the government, and therefore, the First Amendment applies to them. This means that they cannot censor or punish individuals for engaging in protected speech, no matter how hateful or offensive it may be. However, it is important to note that this does not change on a public university campus. The First Amendment still binds the university to protect free speech.

Limitations and Exceptions

While the First Amendment protects free speech, there are some limitations and exceptions. For example, universities have a duty to ensure a safe and inclusive learning environment for all students, regardless of their race, gender, or other characteristics. In some cases, hate speech may be interpreted as workplace harassment or create a hostile work environment, which could provide a legal basis for limiting such speech. Additionally, if the hate speech is directed at a specific individual and curtails their educational opportunities, the university may have a responsibility to intervene.

True Threats and Fighting Words

For speech to be considered a "true threat," it must endanger a specific individual. Simply expressing hateful or offensive views is not enough to meet this threshold. However, if the speech includes specific and immediate threats of violence, it may be considered a true threat and fall outside the protection of the First Amendment. Similarly, "fighting words," or speech that is so insulting and directed at a particular person that it could provoke a violent reaction, may also fall outside the protection of the First Amendment.

Viewpoint Discrimination

Hate speech has also been protected under the First Amendment due to limits against "viewpoint" discrimination. This means that the government cannot discriminate against a particular viewpoint, even if it is hateful or offensive. However, this does not mean that universities cannot engage in counter-speech or promote inclusive and respectful dialogue on campus.

In conclusion, while hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, there are certain circumstances in which it may be limited or restricted, especially when it interferes with the rights and well-being of others. Public universities must navigate these complexities, ensuring both the protection of free speech and the safety and inclusivity of their campus communities.

Frequently asked questions