​Drawing the line

Yesterday, following the discovery of hate speech spray-painted across the East Campus Bridge, we emphasized our campus’s complicity in promoting a culture in which some among us feel comfortable utilizing hate speech. Today, we scrutinize hate speech to characterize the types of derogatory and problematic speech we should actively push against. We evaluate potentially hateful speech on the basis of content, intent and context, noting that the intersections of these criteria often confound the differences between hate speech and appropriate self expression. Recognizing this, we caution students not to toe the line we draw since gray areas can still prove to be offensive.

In many cases, broaching uncomfortable topics, if done in a sensitive way, can present important learning opportunities. However, striking a balance between the intention behind and content of a potentially contentious discussion is key in separating hateful and acceptable speech. Such conversations must be entered with a desire to learn and engage in respectful discussion rather than impose beliefs or opinions on another person. In some cases, though, genuine intention can prove insufficient in allaying harm done by the language of the conversation. In these situations, we must accept that any negative impact of the words utilized outweighs the original intention and be willing to steer the conversation in another direction. However, we can avoid unnecessary harm to another by reflecting on our tone and questioning whether a word or phrase with discriminatory connotations would be better replaced with another.

Each conversation provides a different context, and discussions that are acceptable to one person may be uncomfortable to another. Each person has different but equally legitimate lines they draw to protect themselves from hateful speech, and the context in which a conversation occurs can cause otherwise acceptable words to express meaning that some may find marginalizing and discriminatory. The opposite can also hold true. For some groups, utilizing words with historically derogatory terms can be an expression of reclamation and empowerment. However, even within these marginalized groups, the meaning of these words must be explored and negotiated.

We will all probably encounter situations in which we are unsure whether the derogatory speech being utilized in a conversation is targeting or negatively affecting another listener. When faced with such a situation, we push students to stand up for one another, believing it is better to speak out in an uncomfortable context than to allow someone to feel marginalized and silenced.

The general line between expressing oneself appropriately and hate speech is determined both societally and individually. Societally, it is imperative to avoid words and phrases traditionally associated with hate. Individually, it is important to defer to the individuals of the marginalized group these words or phrases may isolate because only they can accurately assess the impact the words have on them. At the end of the day, our mission is simple. We seek to respect others, their values and their experiences. As we move forward from the hateful acts of last weekend, in order to avoid unintentionally hurting another, we have to be more careful about our language even if we have been flippant during past conversations. Caution is a small price to pay to avoid crossing the line and expressing the hatefulness we condemn.