About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1249 (1995)
Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun

handle is hein.journals/arzjl27 and id is 1259 raw text is: Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun Charles R. Calleros In their recent essay on campus hate speech, Professor Richard Delgado and David H. Yun respond to four objections advanced by the moderate left against broad regulation of offensive speech on state college campuses.' Although they assert that the four paternalistic arguments do not survive close analysis,2 their analysis does not fairly state the strength of these arguments. In particular, they understate the efficacy of community education and counterspeech, omitting discussion of recent examples of successful counterspeech and of counterproductive measures to suppress offensive speech. Ironically, in this respect, they turn the paternalism argument on its head by advocating administrative sanctions in place of individual and community action and empowerment. Perhaps most ironically, however, Delgado and Yun don't go far enough in advocating clearly constitutional responses to discriminatory speech and conduct on campus. To some extent, their debate with free speech advocates on the moderate left, such as the American Civil Liberties Union,3 largely is rhetorical because the ACLU has for several years endorsed modest antiracism rules such as those that Delgado and Yun propose. Experience shows, however, that an effective campus strategy for combatting hate and bigotry relies on such rules only as a base on which to launch a constructive, comprehensive, campus-wide effort to foster mutual respect and intellectual inquiry. Those who continue to focus single-mindedly on the top-down solution proposed by disciplinary codes not only raise constitutional * Professor of Law, Arizona State University. The author wishes to thank Robert M. O'Neil and James Weinstein for their helpful comments and Richard Delgado for his support and encouragement. 1. Richard Delgado & David H. Yun, Pressure Valves and Bloodied Chickens: An Analysis of Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulation, 82 CAL. L. REV. 871 (1994). 2. Id. at 885. 3. Richard Delgado & David H. Yun, The Neoconservative Case Against Hate-Speech Regulation-Lively, D'Souza, Gates, Carter, and the Toughlove Crowd, 47 VAND. L. REV. 1807, 1809 (1994) (referring to Delgado & Yun, supra note 1, as a response to the moderate left, whose arguments are typified by that of the national ACLU).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most