College Provost Lee Bollinger said it would be difficult to make new rules that governed hate speech on campus fairly, before about 100 students in yesterday's panel discussion about hate speech.
College President James Freedman opened the symposium by discussing the connection between law and the liberal arts.
"I have always been disturbed that law and liberal arts have been separated," Freedman said of the current state of education.
Addressing the possibility of developing rules governing hate speech, Bollinger said it is important to examine each instance of hate speech individually before making overall decisions. It is unfair to make blanket rules regarding offensive speech, he said.
"You can't draw the line at racial epithets," which, he said, may sometimes be protected by the freedom of speech "You have to figure out the context."
Other than this consideration, Bollinger said there would be nothing unlawful about hate speech codes at the College.
"Since Dartmouth is an example of a private institution it is not covered by the First Amendment," he said.
He said the College does have a speech code, but talked about it only in the context of extreme situations like death threats.
Philosophy Professor Susan Brison said the effects of hate speech are often underestimated.
"I think we should be very concerned," she said of the lack of hate speech codes at the College.
Brison also emphasized the importance of interpreting recent occurrences involving racial epithets at the College from the right perspective.
"I find it odd that we expect people to render themselves immune to hate speech," she said. Brison compared hate speech to rapes or muggings -- crimes in which the victims are not at fault.
While she said she was not against hate speech codes, she said she was more concerned with their ineffectiveness.
"We really have to work with the much larger questions of bigotry on campus," she said.
She put the recent incidents on campus in a national context.
"People view these incidents as isolated," Brison said. "The sad fact is that these incidents are occurring ... all over the country."
Bollinger said college campuses are the main site for current national arguments over the freedom of speech.
Bollinger listed three causes for the centering of first amendment arguments around campuses.
"One reason," Bollinger said, "is that youth always bring new issues to us." In addition, he said, the importance of education and freedom sometimes conflict with the need for respect. The third reason, Bollinger said, is frustration among students over social issues.
He also put the First Amendment in a historical context.
"In the late 70s there's a major shift in the way people are thinking about free speech," Bollinger said. People began to look at pornography as something that led to systemic oppression, which led to the debate of equality versus the freedom of speech, he said.
"There is a powerful set of arguments on both sides," he said.
Australian National University Philosophy Professor Natalie Stoljar related freedom of speech concerns in Australia with those at the College.
Noting Australia's lack of a bill of rights that guarantees the freedom of speech, Stoljar said Americans often took the first amendment for granted.
The hate speech panel was presented as part of a symposium titled "Speech, Harm and Conflicts of Rights," which was sponsored by the Dartmouth Lawyers Association and held in the Rockefeller Center for the Social Sciences. The symposium also included a panel discussion to address pornography.
Discussing pornography, McGill University Philosophy Professor Susan Dwyer said the freedom of speech should not infringe on the individual's right to equality.
Monash University Philosophy Professor Rae Langton argued that pornography could be harmful by infringing on the freedom of speech. "Women's speech can be silenced by pornography," she said.
Harvard University Government Professor Frederick Schauer discussed the importance of balancing the right to equality with the freedom of speech. Schauer said the freedom of speech was more important in today's political world.
