Some students are worried that using words such as “crazy” or pledging support for business mogul Donald Trump could result in punishment from Syracuse University.

These concerns, and others like them, were addressed Wednesday night in Crouse-Hinds Hall at a forum about free speech. About 12 students attended the forum, which was hosted by the Graduate Student Organization to get feedback on a set of recommendations outlined in a report made by the Working Group on Free Speech.

The working group was created in February 2015 by Chancellor Kent Syverud in response to resolutions passed by the GSO and the Student Association. The resolutions called on the SU administration to review its Computing and Electronic Policy, which the organizations claimed limited free speech on campus.

The working group expanded its report, which was released in November, to include recommendations about all free speech policies on campus — not just the computing and electronic policy. The issues raised at the forum involved how to properly handle hate speech on campus, as well as the university’s Stop Bias website.

The report sets guidelines for what should be considered “harassing speech” and classifies harassing speech as speech that is unwelcome, directed at an individual or “so severe, persistent, pervasive, and objectively offensive that a reasonable person would be adversely affected to a degree that interferes with her or his ability to participate in or to realize the intended benefits of an institutional activity, opportunity, or resource.”

Under this standard set in the report, hate speech is protected, said Zachary Greenberg, a working group member and third-year College of Law student. Greenberg, who led the forum, said he does not want protected speech under the First Amendment “to get swept up in the definition of harassment.”

The protection of hate speech, if it does not fall under the harassment standard, was hotly debated at the forum.

One student said hate speech and offensive speech aren’t the same thing and shouldn’t be put in the same category, which is the case in the report.

“If I say that I support (Donald) Trump, that could be interpreted as offensive to some people,” the student said. “But if someone says the n-word to me, that’s hate speech.”

To that point, Greenberg made it clear that while the report protects hate speech, people are subject to punishment when the standard is met for harassment.

But if that standard isn’t met, Greenberg said that people should confront views they disagree with and call people out instead of punishing them.

In response, one student said he shouldn’t be expected to have an intellectual conversation with someone who uses the n-word.

Some attendees of the forum also took issue with SU’s Stop Bias website, which operates as an anonymous reporting tool for students to report what the university defines as “bias.” Greenberg pointed out that what the university considers “bias” includes forms of protected speech like name-calling and stereotyping.

“This is ridiculous. I could report you all right now,” Greenberg joked.

The students raising concerns about the website said they are afraid innocent people can be targeted if they do something that is perceived to be offensive by only one other person. One student worried if he called someone “crazy” that it would be considered ableist and offensive.

The report addresses these concerns, Greenberg said. The report recommends that the Stop Bias website be controlled by students instead of the university.

Former GSO President Patrick Neary said the recommendations in the report regarding hate speech and the Stop Bias website are on par with public universities around the country. He said the line between offensive speech, hate speech and harassment is delicate, adding that the recommendations in the report do their best to reflect that.

Said Neary: “The lines should be drawn in social consequences and not in policy.”

Published on March 10, 2016 at 12:16 am

Contact Rachel: [email protected]