History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Davidson College has secured two honors in the past week. First, its men's basketball team captured the Southern Conference crown, trouncing Chattanooga, 80-55. Second, it received FIRE's award for"Speech Code of the Month." The Davidson code prohibits such “patronizing remarks” as “referring to an adult as ‘girl,’ ‘boy,’ ‘hunk,’ ‘doll,’ ‘honey,’” or “sweetie.” The code also prohibits “comments or inquiries about dating.”
Perhaps there's a connection between these two events. Given that the code seems likely to decrease romantic liaisons, basketball players probably had extra time and focus for their athletic activities.
A college administration has taken the time and effort to list out words and behavior (asking about dating) that they don't want to see. In such an atmosphere, students have two choices: one, ignore the written code, as Hiram Hoover suggests they can do, on the grounds that a responsible administrator would never enforce the code literally, and run the risk of being called before a disciplinary committee; or self-censor their speech and play it safe. Colleges have lost their way when they present students with such a choice.
Hiram Hover -
3/9/2006
It is a significant difference when there’s no evidence that these rules are being understood or applied at Davidson in the way that you suggest. And FIRE has presented no evidence that either students or administrators there are doing so.
Robert KC Johnson -
3/9/2006
Part of this, it does seem, is poor policy construction by Davidson--i.e., tossing items possibly developed for other things, such as sexual harassment of employees. One other thing that's odd about the Davidson provision:
"The President of Davidson College shall appoint a Committee on Equity whose broad responsibilities will include promoting and insuring equal treatment for all employees and students, without regard to gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
"The committee is composed of six persons, two each from the faculty, staff, and student body, and including at least two males and at least two females. The student members will participate fully in committee activities, except in those instances where a formal complaint does not involve a student as one of the parties. Appointments will be for a two year term."
This is a very strange committee structure, in a variety of ways.
Robert KC Johnson -
3/9/2006
OK, it doesn't ban them--it makes them potentially subject to disciplinary action. I don't think that's a significant difference.
Hiram Hover -
3/9/2006
Ralph -- The only position I'm espousing here is that FIRE and KC shouldn't misrepresent Davidson's code, which they do by claiming that it categorically bans certain expressions.
Oscar Chamberlain -
3/9/2006
From sone of the comments above I had concluded that the code only banned those terms in certain contexts.
Although the terms are not banned, they are deemed "inappropriate." And while the authors may have meant for that to be in context of harrassment or power plays in one form or another, that is not made explicit, and it would be quite reasonable to interpret it as saying those phrases are inappropriate in all circumstances.
Sorry KC, Ralph. It does not seem to be my week for jumping to (good) conclusions.
Oscar Chamberlain -
3/8/2006
KC claimed that certain phrases were banned, period, regardless of context.
Here's the quote: "The Davidson code prohibits such “patronizing remarks” as “referring to an adult as ‘girl,’ ‘boy,’ ‘hunk,’ ‘doll,’ ‘honey,’” or “sweetie.” The code also prohibits “comments or inquiries about dating.”'
Robert KC Johnson -
3/8/2006
I'm not sure where my post was inaccurate. Davidson did receive the speech code honor. Their code does prohibit such “patronizing remarks” as “referring to an adult as ‘girl,’ ‘boy,’ ‘hunk,’ ‘doll,’ ‘honey,’” or “sweetie.” The code also prohibits “comments or inquiries about dating.”
Further down in the passage, the code holds "Any community member who feels that they have been affected by conduct in violation of this policy may bring a complaint of sexual harassment." This is about as broad as you can get--"have been affected by conduct."
Ralph E. Luker -
3/8/2006
I'm not sure that either KC or FIRE made a claim much larger than your concession that the code at Davidson is highly flawed. If these codes are so utterly dependent on context, they rely almost entirely on the subjectivity of the potential accuser. So, I can call Susie "darling" today without penalty, but if she hooks up with Bill tonight and I call her "darling" tomorrow, she may haul my ass up to the judicial board. It's a crock, Oscar.
Oscar Chamberlain -
3/8/2006
"those of you"
Ralph, You assume, perhaps logically, that I support this rule. I don't. But it should be reported for what it is, a highly flawed attempt to describe what is, in fact, a common sene approach to harrassment.
KC's report, and apparently FIRE's as well, were inaccurate.
PS Thanks for the Google terms. I couldn't remember which Fire leader had commented here, and hoped that you might recall the post. So far I have not found it. I'll link when I do.
Ralph E. Luker -
3/8/2006
Oscar, If you were one of my students, I'd suggest that maybe a google search for "Lukianoff" and "Cliopatria" would turn up the evidence that you are looking for. I don't recall it. But I'd also tell you, frankly, that as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on those of you who would put greater constraints on speech within academic communities than exist in society at large. It is just that instinct on the left to make academic communities less free than society at large that I find most disturbing in the position espoused here by you, Hiram Hover, and others.
Oscar Chamberlain -
3/8/2006
KC, Ralph
I can't remember on which post, but it seems to me that one Fire's leaders commented here at Cliopatria that whether or not some words were evidence of harassment depended upon context.
If you can find that post, please link to it or paste, because if I remember it correctly, his position was pretty close to what this code actually does.
Richard Newell -
3/8/2006
The wording is a bit loose, I'm afraid. It lists a series of words whose use is "unacceptable", without claiming that their use, per se, constitutes the creation of a hostile learning environment. And the use doesn't even have to be to the person's face or in their presence (necessarily), all one has to do is use it in "referring" to an adult (as opposed to addressing). The three areas it lists are not even exhaustive, as broad as they are, since the policy says it "includes, but is not limited to ...", and then it qualifies it further by the introduction of "especially". It's the little details that make this broad, and in effect, a speech code as well as a sexual harassment policy.
Adam Kotsko -
3/8/2006
I would just make one correction to that exemplary speech code -- every week, there should be a word that, when uttered, provokes unrestrained screaming. (This is based on Pee-Wee's Playhouse.) Those who fail to scream upon hearing the magic word would be severely disciplined.
Ray Mikell -
3/8/2006
My own employer's (that is, university's) sexual harassment policy--also in the student handbook and the faculty one as well--states that harassment can be employer-student, employer-employee, student-student, etc., although it's clearly aimed more squarely at employees and faculty. And it contains notes about harassment that include jokes, without saying what those jokes are, and all the usual. It doesn't get as specific as this one in some areas, such as "girl" and "honey," but they're quite similar. Every school has something like it by now, and it's not called a "speech code." As someone noted above, it's all about behavior that, taken as a whole, can be seen as creating a hostile learning or working environment.
Richard Newell -
3/7/2006
The scope of the prohibitions seems unduly large, or at least the drafting is so unartful as to permit that interpretation.
The policy states its intention is "to prevent the occurrence of sexual harassment by expressing the college's strong disappoval of such action, by providing a means for community members to report all incidents of sexual harassment should they occur ..." As yet, not a mention of restriction to employees. Indeed, the word 'all' would suggest otherwise.
Under "Definition", the policy does state that it "expressly prohibits any form of employee intimidation or harassment", where harassment is defined more broadly still, suggesting the broader concept is not an implication of the specific policy being explained, but a digression.
Under "Formal Complaints", Section 4 contains the language "a recommendation to the Dean of Students if the accused is a student". Hard to construe that as just an employment policy, though students can be employees, of course. Section 6 repeats these concepts.
Hiram Hover -
3/7/2006
Yes, I did read Davidson's code, after seeing same post at FIRE that KC links to. And I thought it was such an egregious and willful misreading of Davidson’s policy that I considering blogging about it myself, but just didn’t have time.
Read in full, the code obviously doesn’t prohibit anyone on Davidson’s campus from ever calling another person “sweetie,” or anything of the other things that KC or FIRE lists. Rather, it gives those as examples of statements that *may* constitute harassment when submission to them is made a condition of one’s employment, or when they have the effect of creating a hostile work or learning environment. The language of the code may be unartful, but it's not unconscionable.
Ralph E. Luker -
3/7/2006
Hiram, Did you read the context on this one? I know that you're no great admirer of FIRE, but these codes are well-intentioned bureaucratic nonsense. At Antioch, we had one of these things that required verbal permission for any overture that might be interpreted, somehow, as sexual. May I look at you? May I touch you? Where may I touch you? You had to believe that whoever authored that abomination had never had a decent human relationship, much less made love to anyone.
Ray Mikell -
3/7/2006
But it reads this way:
Definition of Harassment
The college expressly prohibits any form of employee intimidation or harassment based on age, race, sex, creed, color, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. Harassment denies an individual dignity and respect . . .
And blah blah. There are also statements to the effect that faculty may not date students who they are teaching, or may have some power over, and warnings as to the wisdom of dating any student. This is boilerplate sexual harassment material.
It seems that this is in the student handbook to inform students of the harassment policy. Toward the end, expelling of students is mentioned (after disciplining, warning of faculty and employees). But I would think that a student could only get in trouble for saying things to other students or engaging in certain behaviors in a way that demonstrates a pattern, an intentional sort of harrassment. I am not an attorney, however, so I leave that up to others.
I'd be amazed, in any case, if the college's lawyers went over this with students as carefully as they surely do with new faculty.
Robert KC Johnson -
3/7/2006
The code is from the "Codes of Honor, Responsibility, & Disciplinary Procedures" from the student handbook, which applies to all aspects of student life, not just employment. I don't see how FIRE has read the quotes out of context.
Hiram Hover -
3/7/2006
But that's the point: if FIRE read this stuff in context, it would have far, far less to fuss about.
Hugo Schwyzer -
3/7/2006
The problem with blanket prohibitions such as these is that they ignore the reality that harassment is all about context. "Sweetie" and "darlin" have the capacity to humanize the workplace -- and also to make it unsafe, depending on who is using the terms and how he or she is using them.
It's ultimately unworkable, I think -- the result of the worst instincts of a well-intentioned committee.
Ray Mikell -
3/7/2006
I read that as applying to employees. If you read the code in context, it seems practically obvious. In that light, I don't get what the fuss is all about.
Brian Ulrich -
3/7/2006
Maybe they're relying on it to work on a complaint basis, and for people to exercise common sense. There's all this stuff at the beginning about hostile environments before these specific examples. Maybe the theory is that, because of the gray area sexual harassment often involves, they listed a whole bunch of things that they felt could be harassing, thinking it might give them legal cover to actually deal with problems.
Still, these seem draconian even in that light. If I'm interested in someone and ask if she's single, that implies I'm not planning to pursue her if she's not. I'm not saying I couldn't start harassing someone after that, like repeatedly asking them out despite rejection, but some of these regulations seem drawn in the wrong place.
Robert KC Johnson -
3/6/2006
I had missed that one!
How would such a code be enforced?
Brian Ulrich -
3/6/2006
The code also prohibited comments or inquiries about marital status.
