Charles Lawrence On Racist Speech

In order to uphold the integrity of our democracy, constitution and higher education standards, there must be an effort to preserve free speech on college campuses. However, in equal measure as illustrated in the First Amendment, students should also be protected from hate speech and provided an equal chance of receiving a safe education. Perhaps it is beneficial to also consider however, that a ‘safe’ education should not be misinterpreted as an entirely un-offensive one. In order to assist in the political discussion and recommended courses of action regarding free speech on college campus, political philosophers’ John Stuart Mill and John Rawls texts’ will be referred to and analyzed in this essay.

Charles R. Lawrence III, a law professor at Georgetown University, released an article named “On Racist Speech” against the growing frequency of racial violence, especially in University campuses in the U.S., to the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1989. Lawrence begins his article by focusing on the message that hate speech “sends a destructive message to minorities that they are inferior.” The author brings up many other examples to support his message such as the court case Brown vs the Board of Education, instances of racist posters and fliers in college dormitories, and protesting against a “fighting words exemption.” Lawrence argues that although it is difficult for the government to write a law that will prevent racist speech without

Another claim that Lawrence makes is “the purpose of the First Amendment is to foster the greatest amount of speech, race and disserve that purpose” (2087). He backs up his claim by saying that first amendment’s intention is not to discover the truth or to initiate dialogue but to injure the victim. He goes onto say that universities are responsible for ensuring that all students receive an equal amount of educations but that’s hardly the case. He also says that we see too many politicians don’t care about this issue on free speech that it brands them as being too closely allied with black people. He says that black people didn’t know anything that many times the free speech would remain unregulated because in an unregulated marketplace the best one rise to the top and gain acceptance while

In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons that racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and what he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue.

But [she] didn’t ‘hear’ it until it was said by a small pair of lips that had already learned it could be a way to humiliate [her]” (Naylor, 411). This not only supports the fact that the boy had been taught or heard this word by someone older like a parent, but it is also sad that a nine-year-old had to be taught that such a nasty, ugly word was created to make her and people like her feel ashamed and embarrassed to be black, or that are worth less as human beings, which is absolutely false. That is why slurs are created though, to make groups of people feel less “human”. This essay explored the most infamous slur against the black community. The fact that slurs like this are prevalent in today's society is extremely upsetting and wrong. There are plenty of racial slurs that are so casually used today, it makes one's stomach ache in distress. Ableist slurs are even less reprimanded, a high school student walking through the hall will hear the r-word too many times to count during the course of a day. Just as commonly used are homophobic and anti-LGBT slurs. A high school student will hear the f-slur and the q-slur plenty of times, and even more will “that’s so gay” or “you’re so gay” be whipped from the mouth of students without a second thought. It’s disheartening.

The voice of writers and authors are the key components to their inner thoughts. It is a way of actually portraying what a person is trying to say. However the case is that their words silenced and put in period of exile away from the eyes of the public. Author Charles Lawrence goes on to state that racist speech is wrong simply because of the drastic agony it puts on a victim’s perspective. In the article “On Racist Speech,” the author, Charles R Lawrence III, effectively establishes credibility, logic and emotional themes to supports his argument which infers that the use of harmful language should not be protected by the First Amendment Law in order to stop racism.

Hate speech is defined as “speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his or her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.” There has been a controversial issue regarding hate speech and the laws that prohibit it. The right to freedom of expression reassures each person the right to express themselves in ideas and opinions without the government's interference. Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment and should not be expressed towards others because it causes harm. In this essay I will talk about the effects harmful hate speech caused to others and to the groups treated as insignificant. I will also discuss how hate speech cannot

Lawrence III asserts that racist speech is a major part of hate speech and is used to create segregation especially in schools causing unfair conditions of hate speech. The blacks being part of the minority groups in the United States, their voices are silenced through the segregation and thus their issues cannot be addressed as they should be done. This is due to the limitation, which they get thus they are unable to express their ideas freely. Also, through the segregation, they receive a higher restriction on the promotion of their free speech rights, which they should be promoting. Their participation in the society is limited, and this is part of the hate speech, which happen to the minority

Imagine a situation where one is walking down an empty street and a woman gives one a glance and begins running, or one is told to leave a public restaurant simply because of the family one was born into. This is the reality for two African-American authors in the 20th century. Over the history of the United States minorities have faced a numerous amounts of racism. The types of racism that was expressed to these minorities has evolved as time went on. Two authors decided to write about their experiences and they occurrences vary vastly. The details that really set one essay apart from the other include the time of day the racism took place, time period of the occurrence, and type of racism witnessed.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) made a statement “On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes,” 1994, which states, “In response to verbal assaults and use of hateful language some campuses have felt it necessary to forbid the expression of racist, sexist, homophobic, or ethnically demeaning speech, along with conduct or behavior that harasses…”

The landmark case speaks “directly to the psychic injury inflicted by racist speech by noting that the symbolic message of defeatism affected the hearts and minds” of the students (Lawrence 2088). The message still emerges in today’s society through the racial comments on minorities. The harassment and demeaning towards the minority students because of their difference in culture and race is inhumane. They deserve to be able to attend school without fearing that they might be a perpetrator's next target of racially assaulting speech. The racial slurs and “harassment often causes deep emotional scarring and feelings of anxiety and fear” that filters through the victim's life (Lawrence 2088). People need to acknowledge that “there is real harm inflicted by racist speech and that this harm is far from trivial” (Lawrence 2087). By accepting Lawrence’s argument that the regulation of racist speech can alleviate the damages done to minorities, there will be a positive outcome regarding the mental health of minorities. The benefits of regulating assaultive racist speech is the diminishment of negative psychological thoughts of the minorities. Racist speech causes the minorities to think negatively about themselves since the perpetrator emphasizes that being a minority means that they are inferior, which increases the chance of the minorities clouding themselves with

The first dimension of speech that West identifies is perhaps also the most basic part of what is comprehended in the term ‘free speech’: the production and distribution of words. West suggests several ways in which the free distribution of racist hate speech can deprive its targets of the ability to do the same. There is the threat implicit in racist hate speech due to the history of racially motivated violence, the physiological ‘speechlessness’ that can take hold in the aftermath of a fear response such as a hate speech may provoke, and the damage to self-esteem which may prevent the targets of racial hate speech from feeling themselves to have any

Many famous individuals of color in our history have hoped to one day live in a nation without the feeling of a segregation between different ethnicities. Unfortunately, these hopes have still not come to fruition in our society today. The United States is still rocked by the idea that one pigment of color is superior to another. This discrimination is caused by a lack of education in our generation and an aversion to difference that has been passed down from our ancestors. Rick Wormeli in “Let’s Talk About Racism in Schools” argues “The violence among U.S. residents of different colors, cultures, religions, and political groups has heated to new levels. Social media may have exacerbated the divisive rhetoric and fanned the flames of hatred more than in past decades, but the intense distrust and contempt, and the inability to resolve these feelings in a civil manner, didn’t start with social media. They are the new normal for many.” (citation). The movie Crash, accurately depicts these problems that we have seen with racism in our country for the past hundred years and more abundantly today. In this essay, I will be discussing how the movie crash helps reveal the fact that racism is multicultural, how racism affects the crime rates in our younger generations, and how the nation can begin to heal from racism.

Hatred is blind inveterate anger. There is no intrinsic value in hate speech since it does not lead to the development of society. Victims of hate speech are silenced daily, “intimidated and subject to severe psychological and physical trauma by racist assailants who employ words and symbols as part of oppression and subordination.” The intent of hate speech is never to continue a conversation but to end it. Hate speech is neither mere offense of the other, nor the expression of dissatisfaction with people. Offending one another is the price of free society, but that is not what is in question. According to Mari Matsuda, hate speech is a racist speech that has to with “perpetuation of violence and degradation” of minorities. It is unjustifiable freedom that curbs others liberty by stifling their views. It relies on false facts, ignorance and bigoted ideas. As Matsuda contends, even though hate speech does not curtail all speech, it does “inhibits some expression.” Outside the context of hate speech, we can acknowledge that words are powerful: they have the ability to create both positive and negative psychological effects. For instance, compliments can build confidence, and repeated critiques can break one’s belief in oneself. In the case of hate, speech words can degrade an individual, incite fear and lead to violence. They can traumatize some from

Speech that attacks a person or group of people on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is regarded as hateful. It has the potential to incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group of people. In Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, Mill makes the claim that essentially all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. This claim holds its validity as long as no harm is done to an individual. Here, I will show that low value speech fails to engage deliberative views that underlie central first amendment fundamental liberties. Subsequently, I will support these claims by comparing the aspects of hate speech to low value speech. Lastly, I advocate for the prohibition against the use of hate speech in a university setting.