Speech code scrutiny continues as students grow mindful of the controversial regulations currently in place at USF St. Petersburg.
The Crow’s Nest reported on the speech codes in an article three weeks ago. The codes were criticized by the organization the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which says the codes violate the First Amendment Rights of students, staff and faculty members at the university.
The FIRE is a Philadelphia-based nonprofit group founded in 1999 by a University of Pennsylvania professor and a Boston civil liberties attorney. It says its mission is the protection of fundamental rights on college campuses. Its boards of directors and advisers are a who’s who of people prominent in education, business and the law.
On Nov. 18, the USFSP community was welcome to discuss the rationality behind speech codes. Professor Deni Elliott, who specializes in ethics and professional life, and attorney and ethics professor Dr. David Steiner hosted the conversation, while students voiced their opinions.
After an hour of deliberation, the widely held belief seemed to be that while upholding these policies on campus clashed with the first amendment, they could minimize conflict and hold people accountable for offensive behavior. Those who did not completely agree or disagree with the codes discussed particular situations where they could help or hinder.
Many students, no matter their position, could identify several advantages to having speech codes implemented on campus, including sophomore Jade Levy.
“I think the biggest benefit of the codes is that they give students and faculty a safety net,” said Levy. “If anyone was to get bullied at our campus, they would know the person bullying them will have consequences for their hurtful words.”
Other students argued that responding to disrespectful words was a more effective measure than punishment. They recognized that the campus is occupied by adults who should be able and willing to cease negative behavior. As Professor Elliott put it, “more words, not less.” They acknowledged that in “the real world” consequential action does not take place unless the behavior crosses the law, so why should that change when students step foot on USFSP grounds?
Dr. Steiner chimed in to discuss the legality of the codes. He said students “must first be advised of consequences.” Then, if an individual’s actions go against speech codes, the behavior should be looked at and consequences carried out in a “neutral, unbiased form.”
He further expressed how the university community should conduct itself without the need for speech codes, believing the “Golden Rule” is important here: do unto others as you would want them to do to you. Personal interpretations and relationships can muddle the situation, thus making subjective violation consequences difficult.
“Best case scenario: We should act like we won’t offend somebody even if they’re the most offensive person,” said Steiner.
Casey Peterson, an academic program specialist in the department of Journalism and Media Studies, asked if speech codes were preventative or reactionary measures. He questioned if students were actually aware of the codes, located in the Student Code of Conduct, enough for them to actually prevent conflictive behavior. Or, if the policies were simply meant to punish it.
What the argument comes down to is whether or not a place of higher education, where thoughts and ideas are supposed to be discussed and explored, should be limiting speech.
Jozef Gherman, junior and chief financial officer for student government, feels the impact of speech codes depends on one’s interpretation, and he is not in favor of their presence on campus.
“I think it is sad that places of higher learning across the United States that such codes are being established and to a point where some campuses even have a designated free speech zone,” Gherman said.
Most students could see both sides, many creating examples of when and why speech codes would be appropriate; for instance, when a person intends to humiliate another, coerce someone, or in the case of plagiarism.
“I think the codes are realistic because they shape you to be a good citizen,” said Levy.
