While the recent incidents of racial harassment at the College have forced the campus to examine its definition of free speech, other colleges across the nation have also witnessed tumultuous campus-wide debates over First Amendment rights.
Because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech, does not apply to private colleges and universities in 49 states, most schools retain the authority to restrict what students' can say. In California, private institutions are required by law to protect the freedom of speech.
While many schools do not have speech codes, they have instead implemented student codes of conduct which prohibit certain kinds of behavior.
While a few schools used to have speech codes that have since been eliminated, none of the 10 colleges and universities The Dartmouth surveyed -- the eight Ivy League schools, Duke University and Stanford University -- currently have speech codes.
But all these schools have regulations limiting student behavior that, in some cases, apply to speech that school deems inappropriate or hurtful.
Free Speech at Dartmouth
Dartmouth has a list of eight Community Standards of Conduct that all students of the College are required to abide by. These standards include refraining from behavior that would result in physical harm to another person, prohibiting sexual abuse of any kind and abiding by the Academic Honor Principle.
Jeffrey Link '98, who admitted to scrawling racial slurs on the door of Michael Yoo '98 and Jon Jun '98 in Little residence hall, is being sanctioned for violating College regulations concerning vandalism and intoxication, but he will not be sanctioned by the College for the nature of the epithets written on the door, Dean of the College Lee Pelton previously told The Dartmouth.
"Even speech which is reprehensible and harmful and hurtful is not subject to disciplinary action," Pelton previously told The Dartmouth.
The Principle of Community, endorsed by the Board of Trustees in 1980, says, "In all activities each student is expected to be sensitive and respectful of the rights and interests of others."
But the Committee On Standards ruled that the Principle of Community is not
adjudicable, and cannot be the basis of a disciplinary hearing before the COS.
Speech Codes Overturned
The discussion of First Amendment rights on college campuses is hardly new -- many other universities have experienced recent controversies over their interpretations of free speech rights on campus.
Stanford University's speech code, instituted in 1990, was overturned in March, 1995, when Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Peter Stone ruled that the policy was unconstitutional because it was too broad.
The speech policy, known as the Grey Interpretation of the Fundamental Standard, prohibited personal, direct, intentional vilification by "fighting words."
Stone also ruled the Grey Interpretation violated the California Leonard Laws, established in 1992, which guarantee an extension of First Amendment rights to students at private universities.
Plaintiff Rob Corry told The Stanford Daily after the ruling, "A school of Stanford's caliber does not need a speech code. It insults students who have the ability to decide for themselves what is appropriate and inappropriate speech."
The Grey Interpretation was drafted as a result of incidents which occurred at Stanford's African-American theme house in 1988. Two freshmen defaced a poster of Beethoven in the house and another poster was found with the word "Nigger" written across it.
Due to the invalidation of the Grey Interpretation, Stanford currently "has no speech code," Stanford spokesman Pete Rapalus told The Dartmouth.
The University of Pennsylvania was also involved in a controversy over the issue of free speech on campus.
Recently, Penn revised its Code of General Conduct and Racial Harassment Policy. The old policy stated "no member of the University community may engage in racial harassment."
But section (d) of the "Responsibilities of Student Citizenship" portion of the new Code of Student Conduct, which went into effect July 1, 1994, loosened this restriction.
Although "the University condemns hate speech, epithets, and racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs," the new code said, "the content of student speech or expressions is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action."
The revision of the Code came on the heels of a January, 1993, incident in which Penn freshman Eden Jacobowitz shouted out of his window to members of Delta Sigma Theta, a black sorority, that their singing made them sound like "water buffalo," according to an article from The Daily Pennsylvanian.
In a series of events that drew national attention to Penn, Jacobowitz was charged with violating the school's Racial Harassment Policy, although he denied his words carried any racial connotations. The case sparked debate over the right to free speech and ultimately led to the elimination of the portion of the policy considered to be a speech code.
Claire Fagin, the interim president of Penn when the revision to the policy was made, said the old racial harassment policy was known commonly as Penn's "speech code," while the new policy does not constitute a speech code.
Other Schools' Policies
While they have codes of conduct that limit students' behavior, other schools surveyed did not have speech codes.
Brown University does not have a speech code, but it has a list of standards of student conduct, which address 11 offenses, Associate Dean of Student Life Toby Simon said.
While most of the standards of conduct are related to behavior as opposed to speech, Simon said the standards can be applied to speech when "it subjects another person to abusive or intimidating actions."
At Columbia University, a university spokesman said, there is no speech code or sexual harassment code, although the university adopted a statement on sexual harassment.
Cornell University does not have a speech code of any kind, Cornell News Service Director Linda Grace-Kobas, said. But Cornell does have an academic code of conduct, which addresses the distinction between free speech and harassing speech, Grace-Kobas said.
In the fall of 1995, the code of conduct became a major issue at Cornell when four male freshmen wrote an e-mail message, which was later circulated throughout the Internet, listing the "Top 75 reasons why women (bitches) should not have freedom of speech."
Although the Cornell judicial administrator ruled the message did not constitute harassment and was therefore not a code of conduct violation, the students eventually agreed to perform voluntary community service.
Duke University does not have a speech code, Vice President for Student Affairs Janet Dickerson said.
But Duke Associate Dean Paul Bumbalough wrote in an electronic-mail message that a verbal comment, if it is threatening in nature, can be actionable under Duke's harassment policy.
At Harvard University, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences adopted free speech guidelines in 1990 that were meant to deal with disruption of speech, Dean of the College Harry Lewis wrote in an e-mail message.
"It is expected that when there is a need to weigh the right of freedom of expression against other rights, the balance will be struck after a careful review of all relevant facts and will be consistent with established First Amendment standards," Lewis wrote.
Princeton University does not have a speech code, but does have a "basic statement about respect for others," Associate Dean of Students Kathleen Deignan said. "We look at ... whether or not individuals [are] trying to frighten or intimidate others."
Princeton's student handbook states "free speech and peaceable assembly are basic requirements of the University," but also affirms "abusive or harassing behavior, verbal or physical, which demeans, intimidates, threatens, or injures another because of his or her personal characteristics or beliefs is subject to University disciplinary sanctions."
Yale University does not have a speech code, but it does have a set of undergraduate regulations, said Yale Dean of Student Affairs Betty Trachtenberg.
The regulations require members of the Yale community to "affirm themselves to a philosophy of mutual tolerance and respect," but also guarantee their rights to free expression, Trachtenberg said.
"There is a line between intimidation and harassment and free expression," Trachtenberg said, "and we try very much to keep the idea of free expression alive here while at the same time honoring the commitment to civil interaction between our students."
