Rights and wrongs on campus

But the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater, and West Virginia University (WVU) backed away from creating "free speech zones" in which public demonstrations would be limited to small swaths of campus. "We decided ... that we could still adequately take care of the safety considerations and the considerations about the operational needs of the institution without focusing speech in specific geographic areas on campus," says Tom Dorer, general counsel at WVU.

At Harvard Law School, the recent controversy was more linked to the academic setting. Minority students there are seeking to curb what they consider harassing speech in the wake of a series of incidents last spring.

On an online class-discussion site, a first-year student wrote the word "Nig" in a summary of a case involving racially discriminatory property laws. Later, in class, some students got upset that the professor offered to hold a mock trial and defend the student who had posted the message. And during a discussion of other matters, a faculty member commented in class that feminism and black studies have "contributed nothing" to tort law.

In response, Harvard Law dean Robert Clark appointed faculty and students to a "Committee on Healthy Diversity."

At a town hall meeting held by that committee last week, the school's Black Law Students Association endorsed a policy targeting discriminatory harassment. It would trigger a review by school officials if there were charges of "severe or pervasive conduct" by students or faculty. The policy would cover harassment based on, but not limited to, factors such as race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, and ethnicity.

Boston attorney Harvey Silverglate, codirector of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which tracks free speech on campuses, says other schools have adopted similar harassment policies that are actually speech codes, punishing students for raising certain ideas.

"Restricting students from saying anything that would be perceived as very unpleasant by another student continues uninterrupted," says Silverglate, who attended the Harvard Law town meeting last week.

Courts have usually struck down such speech and antiharassment codes, particularly those created at public universities, says Professor Weaver. Still, he says, universities continue to clamp down on speech, concerned that racist comments or other forms of inappropriate speech may create an inhospitable environment for minority groups.

Harvard Law diversity-committee members bristle at the notion that any new policy might take the form of a speech code that censors what people can say. Instead, they may adopt a statement of principles that merely offers guidance, says Prof. Martha Field, who chairs the committee.

Harvard Law spokesman Mike Armini says Dean Clark is "very reluctant" to "head in the direction of harassment codes and speech codes. Obviously we need to have a climate of respect on campus, but it's all about where we draw the line."

Whatever form a new policy takes, classmates and faculty need to learn how to discuss delicate subjects, says third-year law student Lacey Schwartz, who serves on the diversity committee. "There's little faculty and student training in how to have these discussions," Ms. Schwartz says. "There's an assumption that we are having free speech at the Harvard Law School right now. Maybe we're not - maybe speech is being limited right now because certain issues aren't dealt with effectively."

This fall, Lani Guinier, Harvard Law School's sole tenured black female professor, has facilitated workshops for faculty about understanding the dynamics of race in the classroom.

"I really don't think this [the new policy being considered] is about silencing people," says Guinier. "It is about finding the ingredients, the protocols, the relationships in order to promote the fullest and most robust exchange of ideas in the classroom."

Page: 1 | 2