By Kate Hill
Staff Writer
On Nov. 19, Cazenovia College hosted a campus/community Dinner and Dialogue event to encourage discussion on “Free Speech, the First Amendment, and the College Campus.”
The event included Cazenovia College students, faculty and administrators, including President Ronald Chesbrough, and members of the media.
Stewart Weisman, J.D., professor of criminal justice and homeland security studies and chair of the division of social and behavioral sciences, delivered the opening remarks.
In order to provide a framework for the evening’s discussion, Weisman presented an overview of the First Amendment and freedom of speech.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Weisman said the Supreme Court has interpreted “congress” to mean any government such as state and local governing bodies and that although the constitution clearly states that congress shall make no law limiting free speech, there are, in fact, many laws that do just that.
“My advice would be that when you read the Constitution, you take a reasonable interpretation of it,” he said.
The professor provided examples of the liberties that, according to Supreme Court decisions, are included under the umbrella of free speech including flag burning, the right to not salute the flag and the use of hat might be considered offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
He also referenced to several behaviors that freedom of speech does not protect, such as inciting actions that would harm others, targeted harassment or threats, desecrating private property, burning draft cards as an anti-war protest, and advocating illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
“[The Supreme Court ruled that] unless you are advocating imminent lawless action, you can say disgusting things in public,” Weisman explained. “ . . . Hate speech is acceptable constitutionally, as long as [it doesn’t] promote imminent lawless action. The fact that the speech is offensive, hostile, or even provocative [does not make it criminal].”
Weisman shifted to First Amendment freedoms on college campuses in particular.
He said higher education institutions are often challenged to achieve competing goals — while they strive to encourage open discussion of ideas and expose students to people with different backgrounds and viewpoints, they also try to make all students feel respected and included on campus.
“Some of the political viewpoints [that people have] may be exclusionary . . . so you have all of these various competing goals,” Weisman said. “How does the first amendment satisfy this? What side does it come down on more? What side should it come down on more? What should be the driving force on a college campus [in terms of ideas]: expose them and challenge them or chill them and prevent them?”
Weisman highlighted the distinction between public, government-run colleges, like SUNY institutions, and private colleges, like Cazenovia College, which are not necessarily bound by the First Amendment and therefore have leeway to adopt policies that may curtail people’s free speech.
The professor also discussed the findings of a 2017 nationally representative study of college students conducted by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
According to the study, majorities of students said protecting free speech rights (56%) and promoting a diverse and inclusive society (52%) are extremely important to democracy.
Students are just as likely to favor campus speech codes as to oppose them in favor of free speech, students overwhelmingly favor free speech zones on campus and students do not believe the U.S. Constitution should protect hate speech.
Compared to the previous year, students are more likely to think the climate on their campus prevents people from speaking their mind because others might take offense according to the study.
While 69% of college students believe political conservatives on campus are able to freely and openly express their views, 92% believe political liberals and other campus groups are able to share their opinions freely.
College students say campus expression has shifted online, rather than in public areas of campus and an increasing percentage of college students agree that social media can stifle free expression because people fear being attacked or blocked by those who disagree with their views.
Eighty percent of students agreed that the internet has been responsible for an explosion in hate speech while sixty-four percent of college students say freedom of speech is secure in this country (down from 73% in 2016).
Ninety percent of college students say it is never acceptable to use violence to prevent someone from speaking, but 10% say it is acceptable sometimes and 37% of students believe shouting down speakers is sometimes acceptable.
Weisman shifted the discussion to the Cazenovia College Code of Student Conduct, which is available at cazenovia.edu/student-life/student-conduct.
“It says what you can do and what you can’t do,” Weisman said. “ . . . [This is] a private institution; it’s not a public college, so we can have [more] rules that restrict certain behaviors [in ways that] public colleges can’t.”
According to the code, the college does not tolerate discrimination, including harassment and all bias-related behavior, on the basis of gender, pregnancy, race, color, national origin, citizenship, ancestry, religion, creed, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, military status, domestic violence victim status, genetic predisposition or carrier status, sexual orientation, or any other basis protected by federal, state or local law.
Weisman also clarified the distinction between hate speech, which is protected by the First Amendment, and hate crimes, which are not.
The Code of Student Conduct defines a hate crime as a bias-motivated offense that is committed or intended to be committed because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct.
“Not all bias is a hate crime,” Weisman explained. “You actually have to cross the line and do something. Name calling, in and of itself, is insufficient for a hate crime. If you use a slur and then punch the person, now you’ve probably transcended into a hate crime, because your words are coupled by action. You have crossed over that line criminally speaking. That is never acceptable and that is never constitutionally protected.”
Weisman concluded his presentation by highlighting some of the issues surrounding political conversations on college campuses.
“Some students equate political views i.e., support of Trump with hate speech because of a person’s dislike of that political viewpoint,” he said. “Is that hate speech [just] because some students support a political viewpoint? . . . People expressing support for a politician or candidate are labeled, as a result, racist, misogynist, or some other label . . .”
Weisman proposed two approaches to combating hate speech: speak out against it in everyday life, and respond to ideas you hate with ideals you cherish.
“If someone says something bad and hateful, you respond ‘No, the ideal of America is free speech and freedom of religion and inclusion and everything else,” he said. “It’s not separation, it’s not segregation, it’s not name calling. It’s none of that . . .”
Case study
Following Weisman’s presentation, Maureen Louis, J.D., professor of communication studies and chair of the division of humanities and natural sciences, facilitated a discussion on free speech and its impact on the Cazenovia College campus.
Participants in the discussion were asked to consider a fictional situation in which a student at a small, private undergraduate college placed a “Trump 2020 – Keep America Great!” campaign poster in her dorm room window.
According to the case study, a number of students requested that the college require the sign to be removed. The students argued that walking past the sign caused them to feel unsafe due to Trump’s statements and policies — particularly regarding race and ethnicity. The student who positioned the sign expressed her belief that she engaged in normal political activity and that she had a right to display the poster.
After reviewing the case study, the discussion group was asked to respond to the question “What should Milford College do with regard to the current situation?”
Multiple students said they would not have an issue with the sign if it had been hung inside the dorm room rather than in the window for all to see.
The students also discussed the intention behind the sign placement, noting that there is a big difference between simply expressing support for a political candidate and striving to make other students feel uncomfortable.
The conversation quickly transitioned from the case study at the fictional Milford College to a very similar, real-life situation on the Cazenovia College campus.
Weisman said under the current code of conduct, a student at Cazenovia College has the legal right to post a political sign/flag in their window as long as it does not deface school property.
“A mere political sign endorsing a sitting president who is running is free speech, period,” he said.
Louis said political speech is very much protected under the First Amendment.
“You are in a realm where you are in a particularly respected kind of speech,” she said. “This is the kind of speech that the Supreme Court would be very disinclined to reach in about.”
One student, who wore a “Make America Great Again” shirt, commented that the feelings of the person who placed the sign should be respected just as much as the feelings of those who oppose the sign.
In response, another student expressed her belief that the sign sends a violent message and represents the dehumanization and victimization of whole populations of people, and that the student who decided to display the sign should be prepared to deal with people’s reactions.
Vanessa Murray — one of the students who helped organize the event —— said she would like to see emotion play less of a role in conversations about free speech and in the decisions that result from such discussions.
“If [the sign] said ‘Trumps hates all black people; we have to send them all back to Africa,’ then I would be like ‘yeah that has to go,’” she said. “But if it says ‘Trump 2020,’ it’s not really hurting anyone — you just have an [emotional reaction] to what [you think] that flag means.”
Chesbrough said he supports the right of his student to display Trump sign/flags under the current school policy and under federal and state law.
“There is no right and there is no wrong here,” he said. “ . . . But I think we have to be careful in the current circumstance to recognize that nothing about politics right now is purely political.”
A couple of students expressed their disappointment that the individuals who have been flying Trump flags on campus were not present to explain their intentions and their personal interpretations of the meaning of the flags.
“We are all [impacted] by that flag in a different way, so even though [they] didn’t come, the conversation needs to continue with or without them,” Murray said.
Louis agreed that any kind of civil conversation is generally good and can lead to incremental positive change.
She concluded the evening’s discussion by encouraging the students to express their views through the college newspaper.
“It’s a tool that you have as part of the discourse of liberal education,” she said. “It’s as protected by the First Amendment as any other kind of speech, and more so. Think about using the local press of the college as a tool for fleshing out substantive, well-supported arguments . . . and [for suggesting] what you think a better policy might be.”
The Dinner and Dialogue event was presented by the Cazenovia College MOSAIC Center, a student-run multicultural resource center located in the J.M. McDonald Student Center in Chapman Hall.
MOSAIC stands for “Multicultural Opportunity for Support, Advocacy, Inclusion and Change.”
TMC was established to educate the campus regarding issues of inequality, promote cultural diversity, and provide an on-campus space for open dialogue.
To learn more about the MOSAIC Center, call the Office of Student Affairs at 315-655-7310 or visit cazenovia.edu/student-life/diversity-inclusion/mosaic-center.
