Freedom of speech should be exercised with considerable restraint and judiciousness is the lesson from this recent incident in the University of Michigan (UM) campus.
The whole University of Michigan (UM) issue started when an incident of hate speech vandalism happened within a ladies dormitory in the campus. The incident happened at the Martha Cook building; an all-female residence hall located at the center of UM campus.
Dylan Gilbert from the University of Michigan says:
There is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech.
The University was quick to respond to the matter and forwarded it to University housing and diversity staff. But the removal of the vandalism wasn’t ordered by the university, it was considered a private space where anyone is free to express themselves. UM’s policy does not allow housing staff to remove anything that is not part of university property.
The dormitory is considered to be a private individual space where students have the right to express themselves. On the incident, Amir Baghdadchi the senior associate director of University housing opines:
We do not suppress freedom of speech, it is a student’s right for personal expression.
https://twitter.com/equityopinion/status/1101332602965889025
Sydney Whack, one of the residents of the dormitory where the vandalism happened also shared her insights, Freedom of speech does not include hate speech of any type. That argument is invalid. Freedom of speech does not entitle anyone to disrespect others and make them feel uncomfortable in any way.
Vague freedom of speech policies
Speech First, a free speech advocacy group looked into the incident and made legal steps towards the university. The organization filed a lawsuit, against the policies upheld by the university that are vague when it comes to issues of bullying, harassment, and freedom of speech on the campus.
The Justice Department sided with the organization on this complaint, forcing the university to clarify the scope of its policies mentioned in the lawsuit.
After the court order, the university made changes in their policies and definitions covering the topic of bullying and harassment. The school also revamped its legal definitions by referring to existing state laws. Baghdadchi states:
As expectations change, from all over the university community, we took the opportunity to reinforce our training, to make it clear that free speech is protected.
Was it justifiable not to order the removal of the offensive vandalism? What are your thoughts?
