On Monday, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission held a forum at Grand Valley State University (GVSU) in Allendale to examine hate speech, free speech, and higher education in Michigan. While the forum sought input from students across Michigan, there was no student testimony and instead the forum functioned as a panel discussion featuring five government, university, and law enforcement representatives who talked about the issue. For the most part, panelists agreed that it is a difficult issue on which there are no easy answers or solutions.
Mark Fancher, an attorney for the Racial Justice Project of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan spoke first. He said that the ACLU has a controversial reputation on the issue because it has in the past defended the rights of the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups to rally and protest. He said that the ACLU generally operates under the position that “the answer to hate speech is more speech” and that it works to ensure that the rights of all to speak are upheld. That said, he told the audience that while the United States Supreme Court has upheld the rights of all groups to speak in traditionally public forums–for example parks–governments are able to regulate the time, place, and manner of such speech.
Following Fancher, Paulette Granberry-Russell of Michigan State University’s Office for Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives spoke next. She addressed recent issues at Michigan State University regarding “hate speech” with her comments specifically focusing on Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) and the College Republicans. The actions of both were part of a recent report produced by her office. Granberry-Russell said that a key issue has been academic freedom and the “ability to teach and learn in an environment unfettered by restraints that might otherwise seem appropriate in civil society.” She said that her office’s investigation found that the actions of the two student groups did not rise to a level that violated the anti-discrimination policy at the University.
Marlene Kowalski-Braun, a director of the GVSU Women’s Center and a member of GVSU’s “Team Against Bias” spoke about Grand Valley’s efforts to deal with hate speech–particularly with regard to incidents in 2005-2006. She said that GVSU has produced a “Bias Incident Protocol” that allows the GVSU community to report incidents and gives the staff the tools need to track these incidents. This has standardized reporting and made it easier to respond either to the specific incident or with preemptive educational programs. The University also posts reports on hate speech incidents twice per year and does a variety of trainings. According to Kowalski-Braun, this approach was preferable to attempts to restrict speech.
David Trexler, who is the Deputy Chief of Michigan State University Police Department, spoke next about the challenges law enforcement faces pertaining to hate speech. He talked about recent incidents at MSU with Young Americans for Freedom and their speakers. He said that they research speakers and potential problems beforehand and staff accordingly. With YAF events, this has meant overtime, additional equipment, and 10-20 officers on duty. He said that the MSU Police approaches the events from a position of neutrality and that they are there to ensure that events are safe and that both protestors and speakers are heard. He said that MSU has a specific “Dissent and Disruption Policy” that provides guidance. He said that the MSU Police have been very accommodating to this and typically give two to three warnings to individuals violating the policy.
Patti Caudill, an Administrative Analyst with City of Grand Rapids’ Equal Opportunity Department, spoke last. She said that the City of Grand Rapids–particularly its Community Relations Commission–has done a lot of educational work in West Michigan on racial justice. In addition, it has worked with the Michigan Alliance against Hate Crimes. She said that they are able to aid universities dealing with hate speech by bringing people together to address incident. She reminded the audience that while there are usually specific individuals involved, the whole community is victimized by hate speech.
During the question period, there was further elaboration on the distinction between hate speech and free speech and what that means for universities in Michigan. Granberry-Russell said that there is not a legal definition of hate speech and that as such MSU has not chosen to make such a distinction. Instead, they have reviewed relevant case law and federal statutes to develop parameters around which certain types of speech may rise to the level of being “prohibited harassment” under the law. In the case of Young Americans for Freedom, she said that the isolated incidents–while creating discomfort and harm for some–did not rise to level of being prohibited legally. Mark Fancher with the ACLU echoed these concerns, saying that “hate speech” is a subjective concept that depends on the listener. He said that universities do universities are licensed to intervene to prevent a “hostile educational environment” and that they have a federal obligation to ensure this.
Related posts:
