 "Photo: Alex Gautreaux")
Eliot Altschul is concerned for the students he sees in his office everyday. He is concerned that the message of hate is alive and tolerated on the HSU campus.
Last week, a traveling preacher known by the name of Brother Matt Bourgault came to HSU to spread a message that many considered hateful and disrespectful. The preacher condemned homosexual students to “eternal hellfire.”
“So many of my students have internalized that message of hate,” said Altschul, a staff psychologist who specializes in counseling students who are a part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.
In an Academic Senate meeting on Nov. 3, Altschul shared his concerns with senate members.
“I felt like it is part of my job not to be silent,” he told The Lumberjack earlier this week. “I have heard in the Academic Senate about how we want to recruit a diverse group of students and faculty. How are we going to be able to do that with that message in the center of the campus?”
During the Senate meeting, Altschul asked President Rollin Richmond and Provost Bob Snyder what could be done to prevent this type of event from happening in the future.
A First Amendment Right to Preach
The First Amendment preserves the right to free speech for all Americans, however misguided a message.
University Police Chief Tom Dewey spent a few hours keeping the peace during Brother Matt’s message. He said time and again the United States Supreme Court has ruled that free speech in public spaces, such as the Quad of our publicly-owned university, cannot be censored by the government, police or administration.
“While some people, perhaps even the majority of those present, perceived last week’s street preacher’s language as hateful and offensive to certain groups, the fact is that his speech never crossed the line to ‘fighting words,’” he said. Dewey said that campuses have consistently lost battles in court when enacting content-based bans on speech.
The street preacher who was here last week has won settlements against campuses who have violated his Constitutional rights, Dewey said.
Pre-nursing major Andrew Painter doesn’t understand why the administration can censure a student for hate speech, but not an outsider preaching a message he described as blind hatred. “In the end, it is spoken hatred that develops into physical violence,” said Painter.
Hate Speech vs. Free Speech
It is the blurry line between hate speech and hate crimes that makes regulating speech on the Quad a difficult proposition.
Altschul said there is no doubt that the preacher’s speech qualifies as hate speech. “To me it seems unambiguously hateful,” he said.
That seems to be the problem in Altschul’s eyes. “While the president said these actions are intolerable, the actions are tolerated,” he said.
But the only restrictions allowed on the First Amendment are those that moderate speech expressing a serious intent to physically harm someone, commit a crime, or incites a riot.
Although President Barack Obama signed into law a new bill expanding hate crimes to include the protection of the LGBT community, there is no federal protection against the dissemination of hate speech. (See “Washington Redefines Discrimination” on page 6 for more info.)
There are those who would agree that Brother Matt’s speech could have incited a riot on our campus, and there are those who consider the preacher’s words the ramblings of a misguided Christian. The speech, however, has to start a riot before it can be silenced.
Looking into Restricting Speech?
There are some restrictions on amplified speech on the quad because the speech can be regulated under time, place, and manner restrictions. The administration has upheld that these regulations are allowed under the constitution because amplified speech harms the learning environment.
Amplified speech is allowed between the hours of noon and 1 p.m.
In an interview with The Lumberjack on Monday morning, Richmond and Snyder upheld the traditional First Amendment principle. Richmond said the campus does have a policy regarding free speech on campus, but it is not concrete. “We’re looking into examining our policy,” he said.
Altschul would like to see regulations that require people who speak on the quad to sign up for a time to speak so there can be more notice.
But both Richmond and Snyder seemed tentative to say what they could change, if anything.
“It’s part of what educational systems are set up to do, to explore understanding and critically evaluate ideas,” said Snyder explaining the role of free speech on campus.
The university serves as a place for testing ideas, agreed Richmond “Having information that questions people’s perspectives is very important for continuing democracy,” he said.
Yet, both Richmond and Snyder want to make it clear that they do not condone the type of speech exhibited on campus recently, but said it is “tricky business” restricting speech in a public forum, i.e. the university Quad.
Fighting Fire with Fire
Within hours of the preacher’s arrival, students were quick to fight back within their own First Amendment right, brandishing signs and the spoken word. (See Nov. 4 article “Preacher Provokes Students” for more info.)
Students received praise from all sides of the debate. “Our students reacted incredibly well,” said Altschul. The university also commended student, staff, and faculty for their display of solidarity.
What will happen next time someone tries to get across a message that is unpopular? Will people like Bourgault have a forum to espouse such radical ideas? Will students react in a more violent way?
Altschul said not allowing a forum for promoting hate is important. The American Civil Liberties Union has another idea. Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, more speech – not less - is the best revenge.
6 comments
we would really have something going. I'm glad the preacher came. You've been told.
Sociology major, Class of 2011
(Also Lumberjack Alum)
Journalism, Class of 1990
Lumberjack Alum