Free speech has long been considered the cornerstone of American democracy. Indeed, our society values free speech so much that we judge other nations based on if they allow their dissidents to speak openly.
But at Bowdoin, students relinquish their free speech rights on a daily basis.
Few students are aware, or even believe, that they are forfeiting such a cherished American value. Yet that's exactly what happens any time students are forced to follow speech codes that regulate what is acceptable speech and what is hate speech.
Bowdoin's policy can be difficult to navigate since it simultaneously claims to defend free speech while also punishing certain types of speech.
The Faculty Handbook, for example, notes that the "preservation of freedom of speech is a primary task of the College; the right to express both popular and unpopular views is to be protected."
At first glance, the College seems to be earnestly dedicated to defending free speech rights. Yet the Social Code found in the Student Handbook paints a far more ambiguous picture; it lists "conduct that threatens, instills fear, or infringes upon the rights, dignity, and integrity of any person," as behavior that violates the code.
This problematic restriction establishes a criterion for hate speech that is almost completely contingent on the mental state of the person who hears the offensive speech.
It is both impossible and undesirable to predict how an individual will perceive or understand a particular utterance.
There are certainly many instances where a word like a racial slur could reasonably be understood as causing mental distress. Words that are less patently offensive, however, create a host of logistical problems.
There are many phrases and slang terms that might be grossly offensive to one person but innocuous to another. In such cases, should the speech be regulated and punished or should the offended party put away his or her violin and deal with the mental anguish?
Of course, such a discussion presumes that it's even reasonable to regulate speech in the first place. Without a doubt, the law long ago established that not all speech is protected, and that the government has a right to regulate some speech.
The Supreme Court, however, has defined incendiary speech in a specific way and generally doesn't allow for speech to be regulated simply because the content is offensive.
This demonstrates how out of step the College is with the laws of our nation.
The College's harsh punishments for conduct violations make the policy all the more frustrating. The mere utterance of a racial slur can lead to a meeting with a dean and, possibly, the Judicial Board.
The result, ironically, is an atmosphere of intolerance and ignorance. A student body that needs to be protected from words and phrases is also one that never gets to hear the ideas behind such vocabulary.
In no way do I believe that racism, sexism, homophobia or other types of hate speech are polite or inoffensive. Yet that does not mean that words related to these topics are inherently unbeneficial, especially for a college.
We effectively destroy a discourse on race, class, gender, and sexuality when we pretend that the emotions and thoughts that hate speech convey don't exist. The result is a disservice to the intellectual atmosphere of the College, for students are encouraged to police each other for using words they don't like.
The College believes hate speech should be regulated because it makes everyone feel safer and comfortable.
But once that becomes the goal of College policy, a tremendous grey area is established where it is unclear what constitutes speech that is mentally distressing.
It also convolutes a purpose of academia. No one's primary reason for coming to Bowdoin should be to feel comfortable, and—while it's absolutely important that students feel safe on campus—safety should not come at the cost of intellectual discourse.
With the exception of first years, most Bowdoin students remember the bias incident that occured in Coles Tower last semester. While the outrage and frustration the incident caused is clearly understandable, it also prompted extensive discussion about racism and homophobia.
Those discourses were brought outside the confines of the classroom and into dorms and study rooms around campus.
The College needs to embrace a more responsible policy toward speech and abandon its current codes. The current policy not only punishes students for exercising their First Amendment rights but also hampers the intellectual discourse of our community.
The College is fully within its rights as a private institution to ignore certain constitutional rights, and with regards to free speech, it has clearly chosen to exercise that privilege.
Ultimately, however, it is the student body that suffers most from Bowdoin's speech codes. The policy leads to the unfair prosecution of students and keeps important intellectual discussions superficial and politically correct.