Table of Contents
Speech Code of the Month: Texas A&M University
Āé¶¹“«Ć½IOS announces its Speech Code of the Month for May 2007: Texas A&M University.
Texas A&Mās policy on provides, in relevant part, that:
The rights of students are to be respected. These rights include respect for personal feelings, freedom from indignity of any typeā¦. No officer or student, regardless of position or rank, shall violate those rights; no custom, tradition or rule in conflict will be allowed to prevail. (Emphasis added).
This policy literally prohibits hurting someoneās feelings at Texas A&M University.
Legally speaking, this policy is not worth the paper itās written on. It is unconstitutionally overbroad, because it prohibits a tremendous amount of constitutionally protected speech. (Most deeply hurtful speech is also entirely constitutionally protected. For an example, take a look at the case of , in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Hustler Magazineās right to publish a satirical advertisement suggesting that the Rev. Jerry Falwellās first sexual experience was a drunken tryst in an outhouse with his own mother!) The policy is also unconstitutionally vague, because ordinary people will have to guess at its meaning. For example, might a classroom criticism of Creationism hurt the āpersonal feelingsā of an evangelical Christian student? Might a classroom criticism of affirmative action hurt the āpersonal feelingsā of a minority student? These are examples of both constitutionally protected and socially important speech, but students at Texas A&M must guess at whether they might face punishment for expressing those opinions, and are thus likely to refrain from speaking out for fear of engendering hurt feelings. Finally, this policy unconstitutionally conditions the permissibility of speech on subjective listener reactionāi.e., on whether the speech hurts someoneās feelings, whether or not the personās hurt feelings are reasonable. The only prerequisite for punishment seems to be whether or not someone felt hurt by someone elseās speech. Time and time again, courts have held that these types of regulations are unconstitutional.
Legal considerations aside, moreover, think of the effect that a policy like this has on campus discourse. Can you imagine the eggshells students must walk on to avoid violating this policy? Think how circumspect you would be in your daily interactions if you could be punished simply for hurting someoneās feelings. Is that an appropriate environment for a major state university that, in its own words, ādepends upon an uninhibited search for truth and its open expressionā?
Texas A&M is the sixth largest university in the country in terms of enrollment, with over 46,000 enrolled students living under this repressive and unconstitutional policy. For this reason, it is our May 2007 Speech Code of the Month. If you believe that your college or university should be a Speech Code of the Month, please email 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 Āé¶¹“«Ć½IOS.
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.
āLet them sueā: Iowa lawmakers scoffed at First Amendment in wake of Charlie Kirk shooting, records show
Iowa lawmakers urged ISU to punish speech about Charlie Kirkās 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 Laiās 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.