Locus of Conduct: Why Brown Speaks Carefully and Why Harvard Speaks Freely

The Harvard administration has historically been particular about its lingo, insisting on describing majors as "concentrations" and resident advisors as "proctors."

But when a wave of universities--including Stanford-- adopted codes explicitly regulating appropriate speech on campus in the 1980s and '90s, Harvard College resisted the trend.

Although the College does have a list of loose guidelines for free speech for its students, administrators make the distinction between such vague limits and a more formal speech code--evidenced by the fact that to date, no student has ever been punished simply for his or her speech.

Similarly nebulous limits of expression at Brown University raised concerns that such guidelines could act as a de facto speech code after the expulsion of an undergraduate in 1991 for offenses that included shouting racial epithets.

But a commitment by both current and former Harvard officials and faculty members to maintaining an environment of open debate on campus has helped Harvard to avoid such troubles.

According to Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel, who co-chairs an advisory committee on free speech that has consistently rejected a more formal speech code, such regulations contradict the values that Harvard stands for.

"I do not think that speech codes are the best way of preventing hateful speech," he writes in an e-mail message. "I think it is better, especially in a university community, to try to foster a culture of respect that prizes vigorous debate and discourages epithets."

The Bok Legacy

The generality of the College's speech guidelines is deliberate, according to Harvard administrators, many of whom cite Harvard as a university where both students and faculty have always felt the freedom to say whatever they please.

According to John B. Fox Jr. '59, secretary of the Faculty, the simplest explanation for Harvard's reluctance to institute a strict code is this traditional lack of support.

"There never was any kind of coalition or group that made a strong push for a speech code," Fox says. "Individuals yes, but no concerted move."

And since Fox says he believes that curbing extreme speech is not part of the Administrative Board's (Ad Board) function, he says there is little need for an explicit code to set limits for disciplinary action.

Fox also points to the influence of former Harvard president Derek C. Bok as a strong deterrent to the creation of a speech code at the time when a number of other universities were instituting such codes.

Fox today calls Bok, who was trained as a lawyer, a "a great defender of free speech."

And it was during the tenure of Bok that the University's role in defending or limiting rights of speech was strongly questioned.

In 1983, when Secretary of Defense Caspar Wienberger gave a speech at the law school forum, some students were removed from the lecture hall after their continuous heckling nearly "drowned out" the speech, raising the question of what constitutes the abuse of free speech.

And around the same time, members of the Harvard Pi Eta Club (then a campus social club), sent a letter to people on campus which included remarks described, in an open letter to the community by Bok, as "lewd, insulting and grossly demeaning"

Bok's letter, in response to both incidents, asserted the need for freedom of expression in every form.

"The University has a stake in free speech that goes beyond the interests of its members," he wrote. "Its integrity as an institution is bound up in the maintenance of this freedom and each denial of the right to speak diminishes the university itself in some measure."

Bok argued that since no group could hope to fairly decide what should be heard and what should be suppressed, a university must rely on the trust that "truth will emerge from a process of free discussion and debate"

And the one time that a draft of a speech code was prepared and presented to Bok, Fox says, Bok turned it down immediately, likely deterring other faculty from pursuing the issue.

Bok's legacy seems to endure in Harvard's current administration, which continues to deny the need for a code at Harvard that would explicitly define speech violations.

"It is much wiser to be on the strong side of the First Amendment and to trust in the good sense of the community," says President Neil L. Rudenstine.

In fact, Rudenstine says there has been no discussion of instituting a speech code in his recent memory and that he does not anticipate any future move in that direction.

Conduct Unbecoming?

Although the debate about an explicit speech code at Harvard has abated, some experts say students' rights are threatened even by the weakest of speech restrictions, such as those at Harvard.

Alan C. Kors, who co-authored The Shadow University, a book exploring students' rights at universities, says that in light of a recent slew of court decisions that struck down the explicit speech codes at schools like Stanford and the University of Wisconsin, restrictions on expression have simply "gone underground."

Although fewer schools are enacting explicit speech codes, he says, many more are incorporating restrictive language into their more general codes of conduct.

"Within the past few years we've found administrations have been blocking outside access to their regulations and have been unwilling to disclose their policies," Kors says. "They've got something to hide."

A Chilling Effect

At Harvard's Ivy League counterpart, Brown University, many student group leaders contend that the school is indeed "hiding" its speech code--in plain sight.

Although Director of Brown News Service Mark Nickel says "there's nothing that could be considered a direct speech code at Brown" some students at the Providence university disagree.

The problem, they claim, lies in what appears to be an innocuous clause of the "Brown Standards of Student Conduct." Section IIB of the standards states that "behavior which shows flagrant disrespect for the well-being of others" can be subject to disciplinary action--a close echo of Harvard College's own guidelines, which specify punishment for "grave disrespect to the dignity of others."

John H. Snyder, former president of the Brown chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and currently a student at Harvard Law School, asserts that the administration at Brown uses IIb as a "virtual" speech code.

He says Brown relies on the fact that the section is so vague so that it can "employ it however [the administration] likes."

As a result, Snyder says he believes that the code affects "all student activists--anyone saying anything worthwhile."

"[The administration] doesn't necessarily take any real action, but they'll call up a so-called offender and brandish it a bit, usually intimidating them successfully," he says. "There's a real chilling effect."

Todd C. Auwarter, current president of the Rhode Island College Republicans and a student at Brown, says his group, along with the ACLU, has twice proposed changes to a code he views as far too restrictive.

"The administration uses it as a disciplinary tool to silence anyone it deems offensive," he says. "There's a cloud of uncertainty around what's acceptable that chills free inquiry and open dialogue."

Both the ACLU's Snyder and Auwarter refer to the case of Doug Hann, a Brown student who was expelled in 1991--a case which the New York Times said called at the time "the first such expulsion in the country."

Although the administration says the student was expelled for a variety reasons, including disturbing the peace, Snyder and Auwarter say the principal cause for his expulsions was that he yelled epithets that included "nigger" and "faggot."

Hann's punishment didn't fit the crime," Snyder says. "We've had students convicted of much worse crimes who were merely put on probation or suspended," he says. "It was an outrage."

A Different Perspective

Although the language in Harvard guidelines sounds similar to those at Brown, there is significantly less concern among student activists over Harvard's perspective on speech issues.

Rather than acting to 'chill' extreme views, some students say the administration has taken a strong stance in favor of protecting their freedom of speech.

Earlier in the year, members of the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters' Alliance (BGLTSA) posted signs for National Coming Out Day that some students then described as "obscene," "radical" and "sensationalist."

But BGLTSA co-Chair Michael A. Hill '02 says that the organization has not felt any worries that the administration might take action against the posters.

"It has always been clear to me that [the administration] supports full freedom of speech for students on campus," Hill says.

Both Fox and Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 say that the Ad Board has not, at least in the past five years, taken formal disciplinary action in any speech-related issues.

"An apparent or alleged violation might well be dealt with first as an educational opportunity rather than a disciplinary matter," Lewis writes in an e-mail message.