Law School Mulls Speech Code

In what might have been the Law School's firs attempt to regulate speech, a faculty committee in March suggested sexual harassment by guidelines banning "harassment by discriminatory conduct and vilification."

But the free speech question that has haunted schools like the University of Pennsylvania was not really answered at the Law School. In the end, the faculty tabled a revised set of guidelines made some adjustments and declined to vote on the crucial question of whether to regulate speech.

The first draft of the guidelines, released in mid-March by the faculty Committee on Sexual Harassment Guidelines, included "hate speech" provisions intended to protect against any speech that is detrimental to a working and learning environment.

"Our job is to make sure that people are equally free to study and work regardless of their gender or sexual orientation," Professor of Law Richard H. Fallon, the committee chair, said at the time.

The original draft forbade speech that a "reasonable person" would find "physically intimidating...[or creating] a seriously offensive working or educational environment at Harvard Law School."

The proposed code sparked opposition among the student body.

X. Carlos Vasquez, co-chair of the Law School's bisexual gay and lesbian student group Lambda, said he was concerned that the legislation could "be used with more force against gays and lesbians."

And, at a public meeting on March 21 to discuss the proposal, several students from an audience of more than 60 had some criticisms.

One student called the guidelines "vague in terms of words and language."

Second-year student Spencer C. Levy said Law School students are already "severely inhibited" in discussing sensitive issues.

Ten students however, stood up at the meeting to show support for the hate speech ban.

"I experienced hate speech during my undergraduate years [at Harvard...and it is time for the Law School to stop saying its hands are tied" said second-year student Lisa M. White '92.

The opposition by students--and some faculty members--had some tangible results.

When the committee released the final draft of the code on April 28, it no longer referred to verbal harassment on the basis of age, color disability national origin, race or religion--only on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.

Speech made with an educational purpose and speech protected by state civil rights laws and the First Amendment was also exempted from the restrictions.

The final faculty vote scheduled for May 6 was supposed to settle the matter. But the faculty voted to postpone a final decision on the matter suspending it to "a later meeting," likely in the fall.