2008 Woodie Awards
Vote Absentee
Set speech free at Hopkins
Issue date: 2/28/08
Worse still, in the aftermath of the "Halloween in the Hood" fiasco, Brody established a new speech code entitled "Principles for Ensuring Equity, Civility and Respect for All." The code declares that "rude, disrespectful behavior is unwelcome and will not be tolerated" and "every member of our community will be held accountable for creating a welcoming workplace for all." But what exactly is considered "rude and disrespectful" behavior? This lack of clarity not only leaves students hesitant to express any form of opinion or joke that may fall under this broad category of disrespect, but also allows the administration to apply the code selectively in order to silence any speech with which they disagree.
The civility code also means that Hopkins students are freer off-campus than they are at Homewood. Due to the subjective, vague determinations of "rude" and "disrespectful" speech, a policy such as this would be voided in court as a clear violation of the First Amendment if it were to be government law. This dangerous ambiguity is exactly why the Student Council has expressed deep reservations concerning the code.
In last May's commencement speech Brody told graduates their responsibility "to assert fact and proclaim truth." But how does one do so in an environment that censors thought and expression?
Hopkins shouldn't be a school where free speech takes a back seat to paternalistic ideals of "civility." So what can Hopkins do to end its reign atop the "Red Alert" list?
It is imperative that the administration make a concerted effort to assure students that their right to free expression is cherished on campus. But before it can do this, the administration must publicly reaffirm its dedication to the ideals of free speech and discovery - the values upon which Hopkins was established in 1876.
The civility code must be repealed. It is not conducive to the very nature and mission of a research institution.
Hopefully, with continuing pressure from members of Student Council and public attention drawn by the efforts of organizations like FIRE, Hopkins will renew its commitment to free speech.
The civility code also means that Hopkins students are freer off-campus than they are at Homewood. Due to the subjective, vague determinations of "rude" and "disrespectful" speech, a policy such as this would be voided in court as a clear violation of the First Amendment if it were to be government law. This dangerous ambiguity is exactly why the Student Council has expressed deep reservations concerning the code.
In last May's commencement speech Brody told graduates their responsibility "to assert fact and proclaim truth." But how does one do so in an environment that censors thought and expression?
Hopkins shouldn't be a school where free speech takes a back seat to paternalistic ideals of "civility." So what can Hopkins do to end its reign atop the "Red Alert" list?
It is imperative that the administration make a concerted effort to assure students that their right to free expression is cherished on campus. But before it can do this, the administration must publicly reaffirm its dedication to the ideals of free speech and discovery - the values upon which Hopkins was established in 1876.
The civility code must be repealed. It is not conducive to the very nature and mission of a research institution.
Hopefully, with continuing pressure from members of Student Council and public attention drawn by the efforts of organizations like FIRE, Hopkins will renew its commitment to free speech.
Be the first to comment on this story