Skip to main content
menumenu
University of New Orleans Logo University of New Orleans Logo

Hamburger Aux Menu

  • Maps & Directions
  • For Current Students
  • For Faculty & Staff
  • For Alumni
  • For Parents
  • Employment Opportunities
  • Give Now
  • Privateer Sports

Hamburger Menu

  • University of New Orleans Logo
  • Accepted Students
  • Admissions
    • Visit Campus
    • Office of Admissions
    • Undergraduate Admissions
    • Graduate Admissions
    • Request Information
    • Tuition and Fees
    • Scholarships and Awards
    • Financial Aid
  • Academics
    • Academics Home
    • Undergraduate Programs
    • Graduate Programs
    • General Education
    • Professional and Continuing Education (PaCE)
    • Online Degree Programs
    • Service Learning
    • Study Abroad
  • Colleges
    • Business Administration
    • Engineering
    • Liberal Arts, Education and Human Development
    • College of Sciences
    • School of the Arts
    • School of Education
    • School of Naval Architecture
    • Hotel, Restaurant & Tourism
    • School of Interdisciplinary Studies
    • The Graduate School
  • About UNO
    • About UNO
    • At A Glance
    • Office of the President
    • Administrative Offices
    • Mission & Vision
    • History
    • University Advancement
    • Alumni
  • Research
    • Research Home
    • Faculty & Staff Research
    • Student Research
    • Collaborate with UNO
    • Office of Research
  • Student Life
    • Student Life Home
    • Campus Safety
    • On Campus Housing
    • Campus Dining
    • Recreation & Fitness
    • Student Health
    • Campus Hangouts
    • Get Involved
UNO Logo
  • university of new orleans
  • diversity, equity & inclusion
  • hate bias discrimination
IN THIS SECTION
  • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Resources for Students
    • Resources for Faculty and Staff
    • Safe Space Workshop
    • Hate Bias Discrimination
    • Signature Events and Programs
    • Cultural Clubs and Organizations
    • Leadership Opportunities
    • Diversity Related Academic Programs

Hate Bias Discrimination

Responding to Bias

 

  • Report a Bias-Related Incident

    The University of New Orleans strives to develop a diverse and inclusive community that ensures equal access, opportunity, participation, free inquiry, and representation for all. However, on occasion, bias-related incidents and behaviors of community members can have a negative impact on others. Bias-related incidents and/or hate crimes impede our ability to become communities of inclusive excellence. These exchanges reduce the opportunities for a respectful conversation to share our perspectives, experiences, and ideas. UNO takes these incidents and behaviors seriously. If you believe a bias-related incident has occurred, you may report it here https://uno.guardianconduct.com/incident-reporting

    The Bias-Incident Protocol is not a disciplinary body and will not investigate, adjudicate or take the place of other University processes or services; rather, the aim is to complement and work with campus entities to connect impacted parties and communities with appropriate support and resources.

    Bias-Incident Protocol
    Bias-Related Incident Protocol

     

  • Steps to Intervene When you Witness a Bias-Related Incident

    Steps for intervention

    Public harassment or hate/bias can occur unexpectedly in virtually any location. It may be on a bus, at school, at a shopping center, in a park, on social media, or at/in any number of other public spaces. The unpredictable nature of such harassment can leave us feeling unprepared when an incident occurs. 

    1. Know What Public Harassment Looks Like. Understanding that harassment is happening – and why it’s happening – is the first step toward effective intervention. Recognize that harassment exists on a spectrum of actions ranging from hurtful comments and gestures to violence. The type of bigotry fueling the harassment can also run the gamut. Racism, sexism, ageism, classism, xenophobia, homophobia, or religious discrimination are a few examples.

    2. Look at yourself

    • Pay attention to your everyday language and be conscious of how bias may (unintentionally) affect what you do and don’t say
    • Remember, we all make mistakes – so if you catch yourself out just apologize, learn from it, and try to avoid doing it again
    • Share your experiences – be open with others about your experiences and what you’ve learned about the impact of biased language
    • Create new habits – using inclusive language requires breaking old habits. Research shows we need to make conscious deliberate language choices (particularly when time is tight) otherwise we default to words and phrases we have used in the past. 
    • Be Aware Of Your Identity Before Taking Action. Look at who you are – or who you are perceived to be – at the intersection of race, sex, religion, color, gender, size, orientation, ability, age, and origin. Awareness is important because a harasser may target you for your identity. In other words, your direct intervention could escalate the situation. If you share the same identity as the person committing the harassment, if you wield some authority, or if you are otherwise part of the dominant culture, your identity may allow you to de-escalate the situation by speaking to the harasser or intervening in a manner in which others are unable. Whatever your identity, it’s important to tap into your experiences to effectively respond. 

    3. Recognize Your Blocks, Or Reasons Why You May Not Intervene. We all have such blocks. Sometimes we’re scared. Other times, we may feel we can’t make a difference – even if we act.

    • We may believe it’s simply not our problem, especially if no one else is doing anything. 
    • We might minimize the harassment or not even recognize the behavior as harassment. 
    • Whatever reasons stand in your way, the most important thing is to be aware of your blocks before choosing one of “The Five Ds of Bystander Intervention” that works for you.

    4. When An Incident Occurs, Choose One Of “The Five D’s Of Bystander Intervention.” Each of the Ds offers a clear path of action. They include the following: Direct, Distract, Delegate, Delay, Document

    a1. Direct: “That’s not cool.” Directly address the incident or harasser by stating that what’s happening is inappropriate or disrespectful. Direct intervention has many risks; exercise it with caution and assess the situation for your safety first; 

    • If you hear someone using language that excludes others, say something. Speaking up is a way of changing culture, and culture changes slowly and often involve lots of small steps
    • Focus on the behavior and avoid labeling, name-calling, or using loaded terms (e.g. calling someone sexist or racist)
    • Try appealing to their better instincts (e.g. “I’m sure that you didn’t mean to suggest that women can’t be effective leaders in our organization”, “It doesn’t seem like you to say something like that”)
    • While you can’t control other people’s behavior you can make your views very clear and set limits (e.g. “Perhaps you haven’t thought about it before but telling jokes like that can offend people – please don’t tell these sorts of jokes around me anymore”)
    • Keep it simple (e.g. “Do you really think that?”, “No, I don’t think about it that way”, “I don’t find that funny”, “That comment sounds like a put-down of Latinx communities. Is that what you meant?”)
    • If you are not comfortable saying something in front of other people, consider saying something when you are with the person one-on-one (e.g. “Can we please have a quick chat about the comment you made earlier? It might not have been a big deal to you but…”)

    a2. Say something indirectly

    • If you don’t feel comfortable saying something directly, try the indirect approach (e.g. “Wow!”, “Ouch!”, “Hey, let’s keep it professional, ok?”) While not as effective as a direct approach, it does at least show that you have noticed the language is not inclusive and you are uncomfortable with this. 

    b. Distract: “Hey, what time is it?” Use distraction to stop the incident. The goal is to interrupt the incident by engaging the person being targeted and ignoring the harasser;

    c. Delegate: “Can I get your help over here?” Ask for help from a third party like a manager in the store, a driver on the bus, or a faculty or staff member on campus;

    d. Delay: “Are you OK?” If you can’t take action in the moment, you can make a difference afterward by checking on the people targeted. Ask how you can help and share resources for advocacy groups and reporting;

    e. Document: “I’m recording this.” It can be really helpful to record an incident as it happens, but there are a number of things to keep in mind to safely and responsibly document harassment. Assess the situation. Is anyone helping the person being harassed? If not, use one of the four steps above. If someone else is already helping, assess your own safety. If you are safe, start recording and keep the following tips in mind:

    • Keep a safe distance from the incident, make your video easy to verify by including landmarks like a street sign, clearly state the date and time on the video, and always ask the person harassed what they would like to do with the recording.
    • Never livestream the video or post it online without the person’s permission. Using a video without consent can make the person targeted feel more powerless.

    adapted from the Southern Poverty Law Center

    Below are additions sets of questions or phrases that you can use when you encounter or witness hurtful, harmful, and hateful behavior from step 4a1. 

    INQUIRE: Ask the speaker to elaborate. This will give you more information about where s/he is coming from, and may also help the speaker to become aware of what s/he is saying.

    KEY PHRASES:

    • “Say more about that.”
    • “Can you elaborate on your point?”
    • “It sounds like you have a strong opinion about this. Tell me why.”
    • "What is it about this that concerns you the most?”

    PARAPHRASE/REFLECT: Reflecting in one’s own words the essence of what the speaker has said. Paraphrasing demonstrates understanding and reduces the defensiveness of both you and the speaker. Restate briefly in your own words, rather than simply parroting the speaker. Reflect both content and feeling whenever possible. This is also helpful to the listener to understand that what they communicated perhaps was not what they intended and they can clarify. 

    KEY PHRASES:

    • “So, it sounds like you think...”
    • “You’re saying...You believe...”

    REFRAME: Create a different way to look at a situation.

    KEY PHRASES:

    • “What would happen if....”
    • “Could there be another way to look at this...” “Let’s reframe this...”
    • “How would you feel if this happened to your____...”

    USE IMPACT AND “I” STATEMENTS: A clear, nonthreatening way to directly address these issues is to focus on oneself rather than on the person. It communicates the impact of a situation while avoiding blaming or accusing the other and reduces defensiveness.

    KEY PHRASE:

    • “I felt_____(feelings) when you said or did ________ (comment or behavior), and it _________ (describe the impact on you).”

    Adapted from Kenney, G. (2014). Interrupting Microaggressions, College of the Holy Cross, Diver

     

  • Microaggressions

    Understanding and confronting Microaggressions and Microagressive Behavior

    Microaggressions are defined as subtle, verbal and nonverbal slights, insults, indignities, and denigrating messages directed toward an individual due to their group membership, often automatically and unconsciously. They are usually committed by well-intentioned folks who are unaware of the hidden messages being communicated.

    Many people dislike the term because "aggression" feels too harsh, while others hate the name because "micro" minimizes the impact. Regardless of the term itself, let us unpack its meaning. For many people, microaggressions are reminders that their difference is unwelcomed. There is nothing wrong with recognizing and acknowledging differences. When those differences are used to insinuate inferiority or not belonging, they start to take its toll on the target. Those who disagree with paying attention to microaggressions often argue that they are much ado about nothing. They ask, "Why can't these minor slights be ignored, easily forgiven, or graciously laughed into disappearance"? Viewed within the context of seemingly more significant problems, the entire notion of microaggressions can seem trivial. There are probably some microaggressions that may not be worth interrogating or intellectualizing. In particular, the internet has contributed to an exhausting cycle of retributive outrage that spins the smallest error into a scandal. At the same time, microaggressions do not emerge from a vacuum. Often, they expose the internalized prejudices that lurk beneath the veneer of our carefully curated public selves.

    While it may be the first time you have said something that was microaggressive, for the receiver, it probably is not the first time they are hearing such statements or experiencing such things. You may still feel like microaggressive statements are no big deal and that people are too sensitive. Still, it is crucial to recognize why the reaction you get from such accounts and behaviors is harmful. 

    What are you supposed to do when you are the victim of a microaggression? In an article on racial microaggressions, Dr. Deral Wang Sue and colleagues discussed the “Catch 22” that people experience when they witness or are recipients of microaggressions. First, the individual may question if a microaggression has really occurred (i.e., “Did I hear them correctly when they made that comment?”). Next, the individual decides whether or not to take action. If the individual does respond, there is a likely outcome (e.g., arguments, defensiveness, denials, or additional microaggressions). If the individual does not respond, there is also an outcome (e.g., regret, resentment, sadness). Thus, the process of deciding how to respond to a microaggression can be stressful in itself. 

    If an individual is certain (or moderately certain) that a microaggression did occur, she/he/they have to ponder the potential risks or consequences of responding or not responding. Some questions include: 

    1. If I respond, could my physical safety be in danger?
    2. If I respond, will the person become defensive, and will this lead to an argument?
    3. If I respond, how will this affect my relationship with this person (e.g., coworker, family member, etc.)
    4. If I don’t respond, will I regret not saying something? 
    5. If I don't respond, am I unintentionally sending a signal that these behaviors/statements are okay with me? 

    If individuals do decide to take action, they must contemplate how to react. First, they can approach the situation in a passive-aggressive way. For instance, perhaps the victims make a joke or a sarcastic comment as a way of communicating that they are upset or annoyed. Perhaps the target responds by rolling their eyes or sighing. Or, they do nothing at that moment and decide to talk to others about it first, in the hopes that it will get back to the responsible person. Second, targets can react in a proactive way. This might be effective when the target or witness simply does not have the energy to engage the responsible person in a discussion. Sometimes individuals who experience microaggressions regularly may feel so agitated that they just want to yell back. For some individuals, an active response may be a therapeutic way of releasing years of accumulated anger and frustration. Finally, an individual may act in an assertive way. This may include calmly addressing the responsible person about how it made them feel. This may consist of educating the responsible person, describing what was offensive/harmful about the microaggression. Oftentimes the responsible person will become defensive, which may lead to further microaggressions. It may be important to use “I” statements (e.g., “I felt hurt when you said that.”), instead of attacking statements (e.g., “You’re a racist!”). It also may be important to address the behavior and not the person. What this means is that instead of calling the person “a racist,” it might be best to say that the behavior they engaged in impacted me in this way or impacts this community in that way and is offensive for these reasons.

    This Interrupting Microaggressions Table provides an outline of how certain words and phrases communicate, perhaps an unintended message to the receiver as well as statements and phrases witnesses or targets may use to engage with responsible persons when microaggressive behavior occurs.

     

    adapted from: https://advancingjustice-la.org/sites/default/files/ELAMICRO%20A_Guide_to_Responding_to_Microaggressions.pdf

  • Self-care for student activists and advocates

    Self-Care for student activists and advocates

    When faced with social injustices, bias incidents, and controversial speakers, it is extremely difficult to cope and know what to do.  Feeling overwhelmed with the current socio-political state, experiencing discrimination, or being impacted by contentious people or policies increases stress which remains correlated to negative mental health outcomes.  During these times, it remains imperative that we take care of ourselves, take care of loved ones, and take care of our campus community. 

    It is essential for us to take action, engage in intentional self-care– to an extent and at the level you are ready to do so.  By doing so, we support our personal and community holistic health. By reflecting, engaging, and taking action, we are making positive contributions to our mental and emotional health.  Please remember that speaking up and acting in ways that are aligned with your values can take many different forms. And each step counts; small acts of self-care, and community-care make a big difference. Below are some suggestions and resources for actively coping with social injustices and hatred.  

    By educating ourselves and staying committed to building a community of care, we can make strides in creating a more connected and inclusive campus.  

    Personal

    Reflect on who you are. We all have biased thoughts and beliefs. Look into your own biases and stereotypes. Explore your intersecting identities. Recognize where your privilege lies. Read about allyship and even better how to be an accomplice. Take BAM! Best Allyship Movement, an online training from the University of Florida that walks you through these steps.

    Educate yourself about social injustices and speech that marginalizes communities that you are unfamiliar with or want to revisit. Be clear about what is unacceptable to you in their rhetoric. Sign-up for workshops, seminars, and discussions through the Diversity Engagement Center or wherever you can find them.

    See the impact. Recognize when a bias incident or hate crime happens, understand how it hurts us all, leaving the community unsafe and on-guard. If you do not understand how communities or individuals have been harmed go back to the educate yourself step. Don’t rely on those in the community to educate you as they may be emotionally taxed and unable to give you the best they have to offer. 

    SPEAK UP and SPEAK OUT against injustice. Do not merely be a bystander. Understand when and how to use your voice to be an activist or ally for yourself and others. Consider using the methods and strategies outlined here. Consider the 4 D’s of Bystander Intervention: Direct, Distract, Delegate, and Delay. 

    Allow your emotions to be. It is normal to have a wide range of emotions and reactions. Own your feelings. Recognize that they are normal and valid. Find a safe outlet to express your emotions. When others approach you remember that they do not know your emotional state and while it may be the 75th time someone has asked you the same question it is the first time that person has asked. On the flip side When approaching others remember they may be in a fragile or sensitive state and while it is your first time asking them a question it may be the 75th time someone asked them a question. 

    Set boundaries. Stay away from people and places that make you uncomfortable. Take breaks away from media and social media. Engage in and disengage from conversations as you need. Assert your needs and own your readiness especially if you feel judged for not being or acting a certain way. Listen to your instincts and remember that cultural mistrust -lack of trust in the mainstream culture due to experienced and historical oppression- has been a survival strategy for marginalized groups.

    Interpersonal: 

    Tap into your resources. Connect with others who “affirm your humanity.” Join a student club/organization whose mission connects with your values and ideals. Get support from allies, accomplices, groups, and experts on campus including the Diversity Engagement Center and the International Center. When ready, make new connections by reaching out to people outside your own comfort zone.

    Engage in conversations. Dialogue with others about uncomfortable topics such as issues of race, class, gender identity, religion and so forth. Educate others -- when you have the emotional capacity to do so -- about the negative impact of hate, bias, and discrimination. Share stories of acceptance, respect and unity. If comfortable, share your own personal experiences. Promote taking action.

    Support your community. Engage in volunteering work. Show those who are targeted by biased messages that you are with them in solidarity. If you know about a bias incident or hate crime, show the target that you care by checking-in with, being an active bystander, and reporting the incident (if the target wishes). 

    Work to enhance the connection/unity within your community whether it is your hall, your student club/organization, or your department. Collaborate with a diverse set of student clubs/organizations and campus departments. Organize events that celebrate and educate about cultural differences, heritages, and lived experiences.

    Institutional Level: 

    Work with leaders including deans, presidents, student leaders, residential advisors, campus police, faculty, university officials, and politicians. Encourage them to publicly address causes of hate and the wide-spread negative effect on the campus community.

    Work with media. Ask for nuanced and thoughtful news coverage. Invite journalists to share stories that communicate the impact of hate at individual and community levels.


    Find ways to speak up. Demonstrate, protest and show your opposition through diverse and positive means. Consider finding creative ways to be heard without giving controversial speakers the attention they seek.

    Adapted from the University of Michigan

     

Free Speech and Bias

UNO strives to develop a diverse community that ensures equal access, opportunity, participation, free inquiry, and representation for all. However, on occasion,  bias-related incidents and behaviors of community members can have a negative impact on others. These exchanges reduce the opportunities for a respectful conversation to share our perspectives, experiences, and ideas. While bias-related incidents are disturbing and limit one's ability to feel welcomed and valued in the UNO community, biased comments and actions may be permissible via the First Amendment. Free speech is indispensable to our society and understanding where the line is in terms of free speech and policy violation can feel very blurry. Freedom of speech and inquiry are primary values for universities, but so are inclusion and diversity, which are essential for educational and intellectual excellence and for fulfilling the public mission of universities.

Below are a series of questions and answers related to free speech on campus, the First Amendment, the rights of student groups and controversial speakers, and UNO's commitment to community safety, equity, and inclusion.

  • What is Freedom of Speech?

    Freedom of speech is the right of a person to articulate opinions and ideas without interference or retaliation from the government. The term “speech” constitutes expression that includes far more than just words, but also what a person wears, reads, performs, protests, and more. In the United States, freedom of speech is strongly protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as many state and federal laws. The United States’ free speech protections are among the strongest of any democracy; the First Amendment protects even speech that many would see as offensive, hateful, or harassing.

    The First Amendment categorically constrains public universities because they are instruments of the State. State universities in the United States are subjected to the strict interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” This is understood to apply to the State and therefore to state universities. Private universities, especially religious ones, in most states are legally exempt from Constitutional restrictions, but cultural comment and politicians often ignore this distinction. 

  • What speech is NOT protected by the First Amendment?

    The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech by default, placing the burden on the state to demonstrate whether there are any circumstances that justify its limitation. Constitutional free speech doctrine is, though not absolute, very broad and strict when it comes to prohibiting speech based on its content. As it is interpreted by settled law and precedent, the state may only restrict speech whose content is used to commit a separate crime such as fraud, assault by threats, insider trading, copyright violation, or child pornography, or is obscene in that it clearly violates community standards and has no artistic, political, or scientific value, or is slanderous.

    With that, an important ruling case for our purposes is R.A.V. v St. Paul , which concerned a local bias‐motivated criminal ordinance in St. Paul, MN that prohibited the display of a symbol which “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” In the specific case, some teenagers had erected a cross on the lawn of a Black family and set it on fire. The Supreme Court found unanimously in favor of the complainant, stating in the opinion that the ordinance is invalid on its face because “it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses.” In other words, even the most hateful speech or expression cannot be prohibited purely based on its hateful content.

    When it comes to controversial speakers delivering remarks on campus, the relevant exceptions to the First Amendment that have been established are:

    • Speech that would be deemed a “true threat”: Speech that a person reasonably would perceive as an immediate threat to his or her physical safety is not protected by the First Amendment. For example, if a group of students yelled at a student in a menacing way that would cause the student to fear a physical assault, such speech would not be protected.
    • Incitement of illegal activity: There is no right to incite people to break the law, including to commit acts of violence. To constitute incitement, the Supreme Court has said that there must be a substantial likelihood of imminent illegal activity and the speech must be directed to causing imminent illegal activity. For example, a speaker on campus who exhorts the audience to engage in acts of vandalism and destruction of property is not protected by the First Amendment if there is a substantial likelihood of imminent illegal activity.
    • Harassment in an educational institution aimed at an individual on the basis of a protected characteristic (race, gender, sexual orientation, religion); that is also pervasive and severe; is a direct or implied threat to employment or education; or creates an intimidating, hostile and demeaning atmosphere. For example, posting racist messages on the dorm room of an African American student would be regarded as harassment and not speech protected by the First Amendment.
  • What is "hate" speech?

    The term “hate speech” does not have a legal definition in the United States, but it often refers to speech that insults or demeans a person or group of people on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender. While the university condemns speech of this kind, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment and it is only illegal if it falls into one of the categories described above. In fact, on many occasions, the Supreme Court has explicitly held that prohibitions or punishments for hateful speech violate the First Amendment. Just because there is a First Amendment right to say something, however, doesn’t mean that it should be said. The First Amendment protects a right to say hateful things, but as a campus we strive to be a community where no one will choose to express hate.

  • What is "time, place, & manner"?

    The Supreme Court has said that public entities like the University of New Orleans have discretion in regulating the “time, place, and manner” of speech. The right to speak on campus is not a right to speak any time, at any place and in any manner that a person wishes. The campus can regulate where, when, and how speech occurs to ensure the functioning of the campus and achieve important goals, such as protecting public safety. “The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.” The qualification that limitations necessary for the “functioning of the University” are clarified to mean the sort of time, place, and manner restrictions that ensure that speech “does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.” 

    When it comes to controversial speakers, UNO invokes this necessary authority in order to hold events at a time and location that maximizes the chance that an event will proceed successfully and that the campus community will not be made unsafe. The campus heeds its Department of Campus Safety and Security's assessment of how best to hold safe and successful events. The campus might invoke its time, place and manner discretion, for example, to ensure that an event with a highly controversial speaker would be held in a venue that the campus safety & security force believes to be protectable (e.g. one with an ample number of exits, with the ability to be cordoned off, without floor to ceiling glass, etc.). The need to consider time, place and manner regulations is the reason that we require students to work with the administration when setting up their events, as opposed to scheduling and creating the events on their own without campus input.

  • Speech as acts of oppression

    Speech may be viewed as an act of oppression. While, such speech is legal, allowed, and protected, members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views that may be seen as oppressive on campus. While members are able to criticize, counter, and contest, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. 

    Hateful speech or even speech that expresses bias is often claimed to do more than merely offend. In current university debates over speech codes and hate speech, such speech is said to be exclusionary and to constitute psychological harm. Insofar as marginalized students have a right to equal opportunity on campuses, speech that deprives them of that right could run afoul of the harm principle. But the means by which it does so has to be through psychological damage or harm, and not through offense. Andrew Altman argues that racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs and epithets can be speech acts that subordinate others when they are targeted at people with the intent to “put them in their place,” that is, to treat them as less worthy of dignity and respect through the use of a word conventionally understood to express their inferior moral standing. Speech that is non-threatening can cause harm by shattering a core assumption for a person. Subordinating hate speech that treats persons as morally inferior is one such type of speech. But other forms of speech also similarly call into question the moral value of individuals from marginalized or degraded groups. Using a vulgar slur about sex workers to refer to women reminds them that they are regarded as not as worthy of respect as men are. Even speech that references events or characteristic crimes can remind people of color or women of their vulnerability and shatter their assumption of safety. Discussing a historical photo of a lynching or of flags bearing swastikas cause trauma by shattering the assumption that the world is benevolent.

    Mary Kate McGowan argues that some speech acts are oppressive. For example, hate speech that makes it permissible within a conversation to stereotype and degrade a group of people would be oppressive on McGowan's model. Lynne Tirrell provides an additional analysis of what she calls “toxic speech” that is useful in considering how speech can harm even when it is devoid of slurs or epithets. Toxic speech is a much broader category of speech that damages the social body through discursive practices that single out groups for oppressive treatment. McGowan's theory of oppressive speech and Tirrell's theory of toxic speech help to explain why some students, faculty, and staff are calling for regulations and punishment of all racist, sexist, homophobic, and other speech that reinforces and reflects the systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression in society. Such speech they would argue wrongly degrades and excludes those who are disadvantaged by it. Furthermore, it is hard to undo the damage done by this speech with simply counter‐speech. Universities, they conclude, should protect both their students and their communities from such deep harms.

    The list of such speech is now very inclusive, going well beyond the epithets that Altman argues can be constrained by campus hate speech codes within a liberal framework. Among the other kinds of speech that have been listed as condemnable are the following:

    • Uses of slurs or epithets that are not directed at any particular person, especially when they are accepted in casual speech;
    • Mentioning or quoting an epithet in order to examine its use in lectures or class discussions;
    • Discussing the merits of racist, sexist, homophobic or other views that claim or suggest the moral inferiority of some group of persons;
    • Discussing past, current, or hypothetical scenarios of violence against persons targeted for their marginalized or minority identities without providing advance “trigger” warnings.

    There is no doubt that the use and discussion of such oppressive and toxic speech are harmful to those who are targeted and degraded by it. Oppression and racism form a harmful part of the context to be recognized. The question then, is not whether this speech can or should be censored, but rather: What can universities do when speech is discriminatory or hateful, oppressive or toxic?

     

    adapted from: Cudd, A. E. (2019). Harassment, Bias, and the Evolving Politics of Free Speech on Campus. Journal of Social Philosophy, 50(4), 425-446.

  • Promoting Inclusive Freedom on Campus

    Inclusive freedom requires balancing of the perspective of the speakers' and the hearers' rights and freedoms. Speakers have significant rights to free speech as set out by the First Amendment and interests in their ability to represent themselves, their identities, and their beliefs. Hearers and other community members have significant interests in not being oppressed or having toxic speech undermine the equal moral worth of all community members. But they also have an interest in hearing from speakers and being able to participate in a debate, protest, or counter‐speech. In short, there are important liberty rights and dignity interests on all sides. Thus, inclusive freedom aims for a balance where speech is protected as far as possible consistent with ensuring that all members' equal moral worth is recognized. “Inclusive freedom demands that speech on campus be protected as broadly as possible while aiming to ensure that all members of the campus community are recognized—and know that they are recognized—as members in good standing.” 

    Inclusive freedom, which promotes maximal freedom considering all persons' interests in expression, provides the right principle for guiding campus free speech challenges. But it poses a difficult balancing problem in a university in practice because all individuals need to be equally recognized and encouraged to be part of the conversation and the community against a social and legal background that is not a level playing field for non-dominant social group members. Given the strong legal rights to speech and the power of majority members to defend them, there is a tendency for the majority rights to take precedence over minority dignity. The most effective power to change social norms, however, is that of marginalized students to protest speech that they feel harms them. It is essential then, that on our campus community - all affiliations, all identities, and across the ideological spectrum - to peacefully and assertively use our diverse voices to denounce all forms of oppression. Above all, use the First Amendment as a vehicle to lift equity in society, just causes, and our collective humanity.

     

    adapted from: Cudd, A. E. (2019). Harassment, Bias, and the Evolving Politics of Free Speech on Campus. Journal of Social Philosophy, 50(4), 425-446.

  • University of New Orleans Logo
  • 2000 Lakeshore Drive New Orleans, LA 70148
  • 888-514-4275
  • Additional Contacts

Learn

  • Admission Information
  • Programs of Study
  • Scholarships and Awards
  • Tuition and Fees

Experience

  • International Center
  • Our Campus
  • Student Life

Connect

  • All Social
  • University Calendar
Request Info
Apply
Visit
Give
© 2023 University of New Orleans Emergency Preparedness UL System Non-Discrimination Campus Crime Stats Title IX & Power Based Violence