Much ink has been spilled over the merits and pitfalls of the “Freedom Budget” and the means used by some of the students who advocate for its proposed changes. Seeing as how I’m still on the 20 meal plan, I don’t think of myself as someone who has been here long enough to fully understand and make informed decisions about Dartmouth’s many complexities and nuances. However, one thing that sticks out to me is the call for “serious consequences against hate speech.” No institution should have the ability or authority to regulate speech. I don’t want to go to a school where there is such a thing as a speech crime.
This is not a defense of the ignorance and bigotry that is very real at Dartmouth and on campuses everywhere. We, as individuals and as a community, need to understand the harm our words and actions can inflict on others, and we should strive to make Dartmouth as welcoming as possible. Yet this cannot come at the cost of the College infringing upon one of our most fundamental rights. Dartmouth’s Principles of Community guarantee our freedom of expression and dissent — and with good reason.
Freedom of expression is a beautiful thing. It has begotten some of the most important changes this country has seen in the last half-century and is being used today to change Dartmouth for the better. What people need to realize, however, is that this freedom is a double-edged sword. If people are going to be guaranteed the right to express themselves regardless of their beliefs, then, unfortunately, the right to be ignorant, bigoted or just plain awful needs to be protected as well.
In this context, I am referring to protection on an institutional level. If someone does express ignorant, hateful and hurtful beliefs, he or she deserves exclusion from his or her peers, and probably a good kick in the shin. However, it cannot be the College’s job to create rules and subsequent punishments for someone’s opinions, even if those opinions are offensive or hateful. Protecting students’ basic First Amendment rights is more important than forcing students to learn to interact with one another. I would like to believe that this is a place where people will face social consequences for hateful beliefs, but even if they do not, the school cannot take on the role of regulating those beliefs. Of course, institutions bearing the school’s name or approved by the school in an official capacity should fall under its jurisdiction and should not, for example, be able to have a “Bloods and Crips” party. However, individuals should be allowed to think and express whatever they wish without official reprimand.
Further, the inherent arbitrariness of a potential speech regulation scares me a little. Not only would we give the institution the authority to punish students based on speech, we would also grant the College the power to define what is and is not a violation. What are the criteria for a speech crime? Can we no longer express something because one person finds it offensive? What about performances? If I’m offended by something that a poet or comedian says, am I allowed to seek justice, or does it fall under artistic expression? While I’m all for combating harmful discourse, allowing the College to make distinctions about which expressions are acceptable and which ones aren’t will inevitably provide frustrating and inconsistent results.
There is no disputing that this campus needs change, and by the looks of it, change is coming. But in striving for that change, it’s important that we remember to protect all the things that make Dartmouth such an amazing place, even if that means that some ignorant people get their voices heard. Students must create an environment where the school doesn’t have to punish students for hurtful statements because we do not make them — not because we aren’t allowed to express them.
