September 2007
The
Office of University Housing at Ohio State, a public university, maintains a
Diversity Statement that severely restricts what students in Ohio State’s
residence halls can and cannot say. Students are instructed: “Do not joke about
differences related to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, ability,
socioeconomic background, etc.” Of the many hundreds of policies FIRE has
catalogued over the years, this is the first that flatly instructs students, “do
not joke” about controversial topics. As anyone who has ever lived in a
dormitory can likely attest, dorms are where some of the freest and most frank
discussions among college students take place. And some of those discussions
will almost certainly include—gasp!—jokes about controversial topics such
as race, ethnicity, and yes, possibly even ability. It was my own personal
experience that in my very diverse residence hall freshman year, humor—sometimes
even quite offensive humor—was a common ground that brought together and forged
friendships among people of very different backgrounds. But rather than embrace
the type of frank expression that often characterizes college student
communication—expression that can indeed lead to offense but can also lead to
friendships based on greater understanding—Ohio State has chosen to squelch it
in favor of a superficially polite and politically correct environment. Not
only is that an unfortunate choice, it is also one that, at a public university
like Ohio State, violates students’ constitutional right to free speech. There
is no exception to the First Amendment for ethnic jokes or dumb blonde jokes.
The
Diversity Statement also contains another, quite cryptic, prohibition: “Words,
actions, and behaviors that inflict or threaten infliction of bodily or
emotional harm, whether done intentionally or with reckless disregard, are not
permitted.” Could anyone at Ohio State actually explain what this prohibition
means? How exactly does one threaten to inflict emotional harm? Would that mean
shouting, “Hey you! Get out of here or I’m going to hurt your feelings…”? The
problem with a prohibition like this one is that it is unconstitutionally vague.
The Supreme Court has held that to avoid vagueness, a regulation must “give the
person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is
prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Grayned v. City of Rockford,
408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). It is safe to say that no reasonable person can figure
out exactly what this sentence prohibits.
For
these reasons, The Ohio State University is our September 2007 Speech Code of
the Month. If you believe that your college or university should be a Speech
Code of the Month, please email
speechcodes@thefire.org with a link to the policy and a brief description of
why you think attention should be drawn to this code.
September 6, 2007.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
