Another example of the conflict between the two (and not the first instance of veteran status harassment claims being brought as a means to restrict speech):
Political bumper stickers and articles posted on a professor’s office door are raising questions about free speech and harassment at Keene State College.
Shane Calchera, a student and military veteran, accused associate history professor David Stowell of harassment, saying the anti-war, anti-Bush administration statements on his office door created a learning environment that is hostile to veterans.
The college cleared Stowell of the charge . . . but the professor said that the investigation itself was an attack on his free-speech rights.
“I was investigated because of my political views because someone objected to them, and that’s frightening,” Stowell said. “Everyone on campus should be concerned.”
“Regime change begins at home,” “Stop the war,” and “How many Iraqi children did we kill today?” read some of the 15 items on his door. . . .
Calchera said he didn’t realize he had filed a formal complaint. He said he simply wanted his concern addressed: that state property was being used to create what he felt was an environment hostile to military veterans.
The school’s harassment policy defines “veterans status” as a protected group.
He said he wouldn’t have a problem with the postings if they were on Stowell’s own property, but he objects to them being in a place he is forced to go as a student — a professor’s office door. . . .
Professor Stowell’s speech of course shouldn’t be censored — but neither should postings by professors or students that offend people based on race, religion, sex, and the like.
Incidentally, the Keene harassment policy prohibits (among other things) “jokes” and “remarks made in the person’s presence” that “creat[e] a hostile or offensive working or academic environment” based on “race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran’s status or disability.” Pretty clearly unconstitutional as applied to speech (except speech that falls within exceptions such as threats).
The college was probably right in concluding that these posters weren’t enough to violate the policy, since they probably weren’t severe or pervasive enough to create an offensive environment, and in any event they need not be especially offensive to veterans because they are veterans. But even if the speech had been more common and explicitly anti-veteran, the way to deal with wrongfully offensive environments is for the school to speak up in condemnation of the rude and in defense of the offended, not for it to forcibly suppress such speech. (The matter may be different as to direct speech by professors to particular students, especially in class — a complex question — but posted materials on people’s offices should be protected even if they are offensive to some passersby.)
Comments are closed.