Philip Rhie//Guardian
After repeated acts of racism rocked the UC campuses during Winter Quarter, the UC Student Association — a group that aims to represent the the 10-campus university — is working with the UCSD Black Student Union to pass legislation banning hate speech on public college campuses in California.
First proposed by UCSA President Victor Sanchez early this month, the legislation is a collaborative effort between the two groups. Sanchez brought the idea before UC officials during a series of meetings between UCSA and the UC Office of the President to discuss potential ways of improving the campus climate.
Sanchez said the legislation would target not only hate speech — which includes racial slurs — but also “acts with intent to terrorize,” the legal wording used by the university to describe a Feb. 25 incident in which a noose was found hanging in Geisel Library.
“The legislation would focus on banning both hate speech — such as [student newspaper] the Koala — and hate acts such as the hateful historical use of objects, like hanging a noose,” Sanchez said.
Sanchez has been working with A.S. Vice President of External Affairs Gracelynne West and BSU co-chairs David Ritcherson and Fnann Keflezighi to draft the legislation language.
“We looked at the existing law and began writing the essential components in a way that we hope won’t mess with the First Amendment,” Sanchez said.
According to West, the legislation would ensure hate speech or terrorizing acts not be protected by the First Amendment, and be instead punishable under state law.
San Diego American Civil Liberties Union David Blair-Loy said such a bill would be unconstitutional unless it dealt with true threats, or threats that a reasonable person would interpret as meant to inflict harm.
For example, California Law AB 412 classifies hanging a noose in a public area as a misdemeanor punishable up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine
However, Blair-Loy said hate speech is not a true threat, and is protected by the First Amendment.
“Racial slurs and epithets and hate speech don’t qualify as true threats,” he said. “It’s offensive, it’s degrading, but it is unconstitutional to make it illegal.”
He added that the university cannot define which speech is protected.
“Every time the university establishes speech codes to try to end hate speech, it’s always been struck down by the courts,” he said.
Alec Weisman, editor in chief of the student Republican newspaper the California Review said that such legislation would create a slippery slope for the definition of hate speech.
“One person’s hate speech is another person’s freedom of speech,” Weisman said. “I don’t want to see someone’s morals being used to define what is and what isn’t hate speech. If they want to speak against hate speech, they should, instead of shutting everyone down.”
Sanchez said he is confident the bill would not violate the First Amendment, and said he disagrees that it would create a slippery slope.
West, Sanchez, Keflezighi and Ritcherson met with UC President Mark G. Yudof and the UC Board of Regents for preliminary discussion of the legislation following the UC Commission on the Future meeting, which was held from March 23 to March 25 at UC San Francisco Mission Bay.
West said Yudof and the regents were supportive of the legislation, but stressed that the language needed to be revised to prevent it from breaching the First Amendment.
“We’ve been told that the way it’s worded now, it’s not going to pass, and the way we worded it, it can’t be pushed through,” she said. “We’re working on editing and strengthening the legislation.”
Sanchez said he is hopeful the regents will pass the legislation on a statewide level — which would impact the University of California, California State Universities and the California Community College systems.
“The regents are finally beginning to feel the heat to act on this,” he said. “We’re applying pressure, and we’re hopeful that it’ll go through.”
Sanchez said he wants to have a finalized draft ready in time for the next regents meeting in May, so the bill could go to vote in the state legislature shortly thereafter.
West said she plans to arrange a conference call with Sanchez, the BSU leaders and UCOP Vice President and General Counsel for Legal Affairs Chris Robinson to strengthen the bill’s language. She said that if the legislation is passed in California, she will push for it to be implemented nationwide.
During the Commission on the Future meeting — attended by West and members of the BSU — the regents were also scheduled to discuss Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposal that the university manage prison health care with a company called NuPhysicia. However, the regents cancelled the briefing and instead created a committee to research the matter further.
“The committee hasn’t even been created yet,” UC spokesman Peter King said. “We’re acting as the intermediaries, and there’s a lot of different players and different things that need to be worked through.”
Sue Wilson, a spokeswoman for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, said the system would create conflicts of interest.
According to Wilson, senior vice president for health sciences John Stobo — a supporter of the prison health care idea — was affiliated with NuPhysicia in his previous post as president of the University of Texas medical branch, and could stand to gain if the system adopted the prison health-care proposal.
However, King said these allegations were unfounded.
“These are terribly phony concerns,” said King. “It’s union reps making ill-advised innuendo about Dr. John Stobo, who has no financial stake and connection to the business now.”
King said the regents will revisit all options at their next meeting from May 18 to May 20 at UCSF.
Readers can contact Angela Chen at shchen@ucsd.edu.
Related posts:
you lost me after “After repeated acts of racism”…
The California Review is not a “Republican” newspaper. Many of the last year’s editors and this year’s current staff writers are libertarians. Sure, the bias is American “conservative,” but supporting free speech to the point of being tolerant of hate speech is not just a Republican thing.
How much is each UCSD student forced to pay UCSA a year? It would be a good example to include in any future Guardian articles to give students an idea just how much of their money is being wasted for useless “legislation” that will go nowhere, or to ferry these goobers around between San Diego, Frisco and Sacramento.
Is their an opt out option for UCSA?
Seriously? Who in their right mind thinks this is a good idea? Even though as in previous discussions I have personally come out against the Koala being given university funding… lets make it perfectly clear, they deserve to be able to write what they want just as much as any other media organization, etc.
Why is the article entitled, “The Bill to Ban Hate”? There is no way to ban hate, and I doubt that is what a bill banning hate speech would accomplish. If that is what the supporters of this legislation are expecting, then they are clearly delusional; banning hate speech does not put a cork on hateful thought, nor is it a solution for racial issues.
This is absurd. I cannot believe that people are still entertaining the BSU and their close minded antics.
So this means that the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam would cease to be allowed to speak of campuses? I think the BSU would not accept that.
I can’t wait to hear who will be the arbiter of what is or isn’t hate speech. Perhaps we can just outsource that job to the Chinese gov’t. I understand they’re fantastic at censoring inflammatory and oppositional opinions.
If this legislation goes through, I will personally hold a hate speech rally. We will make loud slurs against everyone. I would love to be the first person arrested for stating an opinion in a public space in a public university. Gypsies, Ukrainians, Inuits, and Zoophiles: be prepared to feel my illicit wrathful words.
Die, “Nigger,” Die!
Think for a moment about the word “nigger”:
Uttering it is like pulling a trigger –
but banning it just makes it bigger.
Why imbue it with such vigor?
My advice? It’s not a ruse.
Let “nigger” be a word you choose
to parody, satirize and amuse.
Let that word die from overuse.
Rob it of its power to abuse
and it won’t be able to light a fuse.
A word that’s uttered by punks and drunks, might as well be voiced by skunks,
spoiled brats, rats and hooded cats.
No reason to reach for baseball bats!
A nasty word that once caused hurt
and so many passions stirred
gets faded, crumbled, crushed and blurred
until its use is just absurd
and whenever it is heard
it’s harmless like a koala turd.
So this of course will apply to ALL Racists and Hate mongers?? Correct?
So yes, let’s talk about Al Sharpton’s racial demagoguery, shall we?
Code Pink, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr, or the liberal groups that promote the killing of our brave solders or effigies of a hanging or targeted political figure?
Hmm – not “hate speech” I guess?
According to this proposed legislation, we definitely need to ban much of the current Rap artist community –anti Semitic & Racial lyrics are rampant in the industry with Music videos are very accepting of violent actions, particularly against women. Correct??
“Normally, according to the media elites’ rulebook, when liberals rant, it’s called free speech; when conservatives rant, it is hate speech.
“We looked at the existing law and began writing the essential components in a way that we hope won’t mess with the First Amendment,” Sanchez said.” “
Wow I guess Sanchez is a constitutional lawyer and know what best for us??
Seriously?
Just a thought – Martin Luther King’s speech where Doctor King speaks of racial equality calls for all races to treat each other with respect. ALL Parties ALL Groups ALL Races
Dr. King had no interest in punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty and he would be outraged over the actions of hucksters such as Jesse Jacksone, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright and Van Jones.
Hate Speech=Free Speech!
Sanchez is just pushing this useless legislation to get his name out so that he might have a better chance of getting a REAL job someday.
Nice to see another moron from one of the various groups that determines membership solely on the basis of race wants to tell me what is racist and what constitutes “hate speech” and therefore must be banned lest some “underrepresented minority” is offended by an inocuous cartoon. Only on college campuses are coddled, hypersensitive idiots actually encouraged to hold beliefs that a non-existent “right” to not be offended somehow takes precedence over the First Amendment.
“After repeated acts of racism rocked the UC campuses…”
With rocked being a euphemism for “whiny losers crying because they can’t take a joke.”. I always get a laugh when organizations comprised solely of one racial group behave as if they are the sole arbiters of what is acceptable behavior on campus and use harmless incidents, such as the ones that supposedly “rocked” the UCSD campus, as an excuse to agitate for increased funding for, can you believe it, their racially exclusive groups. The moronic crybabies at the Black Student Union are the perfect example.
This article should be more aptly titled:
“The futile attempt, by a bunch of clueless, self-important idiots, to ban speech that is protected by the First Amendment”.
It is amaszing that an idiot who claims he is looking for ways to make his blatantly unconstitional ban on hate speech comply with the First Amendment would actually utter the following:
“The legislation would focus on banning both hate speech — such as [student newspaper] the Koala…”
So let me get this straight. This “genius” actually thinks banning an entire newspaper would somehow be deemed constitutional? Is UCSD actually producing morons of this “caliber”? I would be embarrassed to have a degree awarded by the same institution that is affiliated with such an obvious idiot.
hi-ya, good post.