High school students attend school each day with the hope that they will be inspired and enlightened. Unfortunately, they are often subject to hate speech and harassment due to their race, socioeconomic status, gender, or appearance. Though a high school should be a place where free speech is encouraged and practiced, a line must be drawn when speech incites violence or causes physical or emotional stress to a targeted person or group. While it is the duty of a high school administration to create a space that promotes healthy debate and opposition, it must also create a safe space for students. To accomplish this, every school must have a plan regarding hate speech, including how it can be prevented and its effects remedied. Free speech is an important aspect of our culture. However, students’ safety and physical and emotional health must always be the priority of a high school administration.

Two prominent free speech court cases are Tinker vs. Des Moines and Fraser vs. Bethel School District (393 U.S. 503 (1969), 478 U.S. 675 (1986)).  In both cases, the criticized speech did not target any person or group, and did not create any violence or tangible disruption. Because I witness bullying, harassment, and racism every day, I would like to know how a high school would respond to speech that does target a person or group. Unfortunately, when it comes to legal and administrative action regarding hate speech, choosing the right course can be difficult. Merriam-Webster defines hate speech as “speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people.” There is no limit on the scope of hate speech; it can target one person, several people, or an entire group, religion, race, or class. Though “speech” is included in its title, hate speech is not verbally-contained. Expressions of hate come in many forms, including clothing, music, and writing. Today’s high school students are constantly immersed in the digital world. Hate speech runs rampant on social media, a space that makes hatred expeditious.

Unfortunately, hate speech is commonplace. Students of color deal with racism every day and often, school administrations and other students do nothing to help. LGBT students also endure discrimination daily and are often not protected under the law. Addressing this issue is crucial because discrimination and hatred are detrimental to the learning and health of students. Speech that targets students for something they did not choose and cannot change, like race, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation, is unwarranted and unacceptable. While some people are constantly targeted, others might go through life without ever experiencing discrimination. However, it is our collective duty to pay attention to this issue and take action to combat oppression. Imagine a community free of discrimination, prejudice, and hate; people would be happier, healthier, and more productive. If we work to reduce hatred, our society can advance and focus on other issues.

Hate speech often occurs because people have different opinions about what “free speech” means. A relevant distinction is the difference between libertarian and communitarian perspectives on free speech. The American Bar Association explains the libertarian perspective as the belief that individuals have the right to free speech and that authority should only step in when absolutely necessary. On the other hand, communitarians value the health and harmony of community so greatly that they believe free speech should be limited if it is detrimental to the community (Smith). I believe that the communitarian perspective should be employed by all communities, especially schools. An understanding of these perspectives allows for a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand.

With an understanding of the capacity of hate speech, I explored relevant situations and cases regarding hate speech. An article from Towleroad details a situation in Indio, California, where high school administrators made no response to anti-gay stickers worn by a group of students. The stickers were small rainbow circles crossed out by a red line. The school stated that it did not address the issue in the interest of protecting its students’ right to free speech. School employees and students had differing opinions. Some believed that the stickers were a harmless expression of personal views. However, most people believed that the stickers expressed intolerable hatred and should be legally addressed. Unfortunately, as the vice president of the school’s Gay Straight Alliance said, “This is definitely hate speech, but legally, we can’t do anything until these students start to physically harass us, which I believe is an injustice” (Fitzgerald). According to professor Craig R. Smith, the Supreme Court “has made dealing with hate speech very difficult. Speech must present a ‘true threat’ in order to be regulated” (Smith). Situations like the one in Indio are tragic; students are targeted because of something they cannot change, and when an administration cannot take legal action, the situation is essentially dismissed.

Similarly, an administration had no response to an outburst of racism at a basketball game between two Catholic high schools in Indiana. Using the xenophobic rhetoric of Donald Trump, Andrean High School students chanted “Build a wall! Build a wall!” at their rival, Bishop Noll, a school with a large Hispanic and Latino population. The Andrean High students also held up signs that said “ESPN Deportes,” mocking the Spanish word for “sports” and combining it with the English word “deport.” The Andrean High School administration did nothing to stop the racist chanting and failed to comment about the incident (Venegas).  An article from the website “We Are Mitú” explains the event and includes the following comment by a volleyball coach who attended the game: “What kind of administration allows its students to support hate speech and racism openly at a school sponsored event?” (Venegas).  In this case, the administration was willing to sacrifice Catholic Christian values to avoid confronting its students and risking offending the parents who pay their children’s tuition. The administration’s fear may be understandable, but it is short-sighted and teaches their students the wrong values.

Though differing opinions are common in these types of situations, in this case it seems that most people were unanimous in their criticism of the students. Bishop Donald J. Hying, of the Diocese of Gary, stated, “Any actions or words that can be perceived as racist or derogatory to others are antithetical to the Christian faith and will not be tolerated in any of our institutions” (Venegas). Andrean High School administration should have taken action against the hatred expressed by its students, for moral and religious reasons. When racism and xenophobia infiltrate healthy competition and learning, a school must not sit idly by as students are targeted.

In the past, school administrations and courts have found many ways to address hate speech. When notorious racist Matt Hale was invited to speak at the University of Illinois in Springfield, many community members were concerned and wanted the event cancelled. However, Hale was allowed to speak. In response, students voiced their disapproval of Hale and his ideas through protests and boycotts. By allowing Hale to speak, the school honored free speech rights. By allowing students to speak against him and his racist ideology, the school honored communitarian goals (Allen).

Recently, hate speech showed its horrid face in my high school’s library. Two students collaborated in drawing a strikingly racist image on another student’s laptop. After the incident was reported, the administration took immediate action. All involved students met with the administration, an official harassment report was filed, and one of the students was suspended for several days. Suspensions are typical, but unfortunately they seem to only prevent repetition of the same behavior rather than work against the ideology that caused the behavior. A summary of the school’s policy includes racial harassment as a subcategory of harassment.

     It is the intent of the [School District] to apply and enforce this        policy in a manner that is consistent with student rights to free        expression under the First Amendment. The purpose of this            harassment policy is to prohibit conduct or communication that        is directed at a person’s protected characteristics (South                Burlington High School Student Handbook 2015-2016).

The policy goes on to emphasize the administration’s goal of maintaining students’ physical safety.

Some schools have been more successful than others in dealing with hate speech. However, I believe that none of the cases I researched did all that should have been done. Though a school administration usually cannot stop hate speech before it occurs, it must work to repair damage. Should they request to do so, targeted students must be allowed to meet with the administration and guidance counselors. Along with a suspension or expulsion, any student that expresses hatred should be met with to discuss the effects of their actions and begin efforts to deconstruct their hateful views. In these situations, punishment alone is not sufficient.

Physical and emotional safety should always be the primary concern of an administration. A school should be a safe place for all students, where one does not have to worry that harassment against them will be ignored because of the First Amendment. Hate speech and expressions of hate often incite violence and cause emotional harm to students who should be focused on their education, not their safety. However, the administration’s hands are usually tied. It is crucial that every school have a comprehensive plan with detailed definitions of hate speech and a procedure for preventing, addressing, and repairing hate speech’s detrimental effects. Free speech is essential to the success of a free people. Unfortunately, racists, homophobes, and misogynists often pervert the Constitution to express their abhorrent views without penalty. Though the expression of hateful ideology may be protected under the First Amendment, we must all work to deconstruct the beliefs that some cling to so blindly.