Table of Contents
Speech Code of the Month: Macalester College
麻豆传媒IOS announces its Speech Code of the Month for July 2006: Macalester College.
As a private university, Macalester is not bound by the First Amendment. It is, however, bound by the contractual promises it makes to its students. Macalester鈥檚 provides that 鈥淸t]he relationships between Macalester College and its students is a legal and contractual one鈥. The legal and contractual relationship is defined in the Handbook, as well as the College Catalog and other official documents of the institution.鈥
The Student Handbook promises Macalester students the rights to 鈥渇ree expression鈥 and 鈥渇ree inquiry,鈥 and provides that 鈥淸s]tudents and student organizations are free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and privately.鈥 Several pages later, however, that same Handbook prohibits, as 鈥渞acial harassment,鈥 鈥渟peech acts which are intended to insult or stigmatize an individual or group of individuals on the basis of their race or color, or speech that makes use of inappropriate words or non-verbals.鈥
This policy is a clear violation of Macalester students鈥 rights to free expression and free inquiry, rights promised in a Student Handbook that explicitly establishes a contractual relationship between the college and its students. First, the regulation is overbroad, since the right to free expression includes the right to insult others, even harshly. The Supreme Court has said that 鈥渇reedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.鈥 Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) (emphasis added). Second, the regulation is dangerously vague. A reasonable person cannot possibly know what Macalester means by 鈥渟peech that makes use of inappropriate words,鈥 since what is 鈥渋nappropriate鈥 varies widely from person to person. Faced with the threat of punishment under such a policy, students will refrain from saying anything that might even be considered inappropriate, since they do not know what is actually prohibited.
In Minnesota, the elements of a claim for breach of contract are as follows:
(1) the existence of a contract; (2) the alleged wrongdoer's knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of its breach; (4) without justification; and (5) damages.
Furlev Sales & Associates, Inc., v. North American Automotive Warehouse, Inc., 325 N.W.2d 20, 25 (Minn. 1982).
Macalester College contractually promises its students the rights to free expression and free inquiry, then breaks that promise only pages later with regulations that clearly infringe on those rights. For this reason, it is our July 2006 Speech Code of the Month.
If you believe that your college or university should be a Speech Code of the Month, please e-mail speechcodes@thefire.org with a link to the policy and a brief description of why you think attention should be drawn to this code.
Recent Articles
Get the latest free speech news and analysis from 麻豆传媒IOS.
LAWSUIT: Ex-cop sues after spending 37 days in jail for sharing meme following Charlie Kirk murder
Larry Bushart was arrested for a social media post and held on a $2 million bond he could not afford. Now, he's fighting back.
鈥楲et them sue鈥: Iowa lawmakers scoffed at First Amendment in wake of Charlie Kirk shooting, records show
Iowa lawmakers urged ISU to punish speech about Charlie Kirk鈥檚 killing, shrugging off lawsuits and betting taxpayer money against the First Amendment.
City Club of Cleveland rejects illiberal calls to disinvite speaker
Historic City Club of Cleveland defies pressure to cancel a controversial speaker, reaffirming its century-old commitment to free speech and open debate.
Repression deepens in Hong Kong with Jimmy Lai鈥檚 guilty verdict and censorship over deadly Wang Fuk Court fire
Hong Kong jails Jimmy Lai, UK prosecutors seek to reverse a free speech victory, and a new U.S. border policy could export self-censorship worldwide.