Author, Charles R.

Lawrence IIIs essay, On Racist Speech, is a seemingly

personal, one-sided view of a controversial issue many colleges and universities face,
freedom of speech. At least, that is my perception when viewing the first two sentences of
his essay. Lawrences introduction starts with him stating, I have spent the better part of
my life as a dissenter. As a high school student, I was threatened with suspension for my
refusal to participate in a civil defense drill, and I have been a conspicuous consumer of
my First Amendment liberties ever since (61). Hardly ever, does Lawrence address the
First Amendment right by, what it is, freedom of speech, but chooses to use harsh phrases
such as, racist speech (61), harassing speech (61), racial harassment (62), and
assaultive racist speech (62), to voice his point. Rather than emphasize that the First
Amendment be re-evaluated when it comes to, verbal and symbolic assault and
harassment (61), Lawrence insists that it is the universitys responsibility to regulate
racist speech. I beg to differ.
Derek Bok, who was inspired to write, Protecting Freedom of Expression on the
Campus, when Confederate flags were seen hanging from a window of a Harvard dorm
room. In his essay, he acknowledges and takes into consideration both sides of this issue.
He informs readers that, For several years, universities have been struggling with the
problem of trying to reconcile the rights of free speech with the desire to avoid racial
tension (66). Bok then tells us of the most current incident at Harvard, in which, Two
students hung Confederate flags in public view, upsetting students who equate the
Confederacy with slavery. A third student tried to protest the flags by displaying a
swastika (66). He acknowledges and agrees that these actions by Harvard students are,
insensitive and unwise because any satisfaction it gives to the students who display

these symbols is far outweighed by the discomfort it causes to many others (66). Bok
says, they must have known that they would upset many fellow students and ignore the
decent regard for the feelings of others so essential to building and preserving a strong
and harmonious community (66). In disapproval, of a particular form of
communication, however, is not enough to justify prohibiting it (66), states Bok. In other
words, although Bok disagrees with the actions of the students, which are protected by
the First Amendment, he does not believe it justifiable to prohibit them. The rulings of
the First Amendment applies to, all agencies of government, including public
universities (67), but Bok finds it hard to understand, why a university such as Harvard
should have less free speech than the surrounding societyor than a public university
(67).
Some may say that I have an obtuse view surrounding the controversy of
regulating hateful speech in schools, but, in opposition to Lawrence, I believe the
attention surrounding the issue is, in fact, trivial. That is to say, I do not agree with
Lawrence, who portrays to be angry, nor acknowledges the views of us, in opposition. I
agree with Bok, who has a realistic, conservative approach to the issue at hand. Bok also
puts himself in the shoes, of the opposition. He clearly says the feelings of the targeted
individuals were ignored and the joy the perpetrators received was overtaken by the
massive uneasiness of others.
Public colleges and private universities alike, contain an abundance of knowledge.
Not only do they provide knowledge, but they receive new knowledge year after year
with the fresh, diverse minds that circulate through them. Equally, they investigate, offer
an explanation, and increase that knowledge by re-evaluating the old and considering the

new. Economic, political, and social issues are often topics that inspire passionate debates
in the classroom. A common place young adults gather to share thoughts and ideas.
Students will find some views wrong, or offensive, but that is new knowledge they have
to examine and weed out the good from the bad. They may even obtain new morals,
ethics and values, or alter the ones they already have. Lawrence clarifies that, The
Supreme Court has held that words which, by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to
incite an immediate breach of the peace, are not protected by the First Amendment (62).
This would mean that the hateful speech Lawrence finds harmful is not protected by the
First Amendment, but rather that the victim of this form of speech is protected.
Given these points, an ideal outcome would be to satisfy both sides of the
controversy. Bok proposes two direct resolutions, whereas Lawrence is unclear as to what
his ideal resolution would be. Bok suggests, Rather than prohibit such communications,
with all the resulting risks, it would be better to ignore them, since students would then
have little reason to create such displays and would soon abandon them (67). He goes on
to say, If this response is not possibleand one can understand whythe wisest course
is to speak with those who perform insensitive acts and try to help them understand the
effects of their actions on others (67).