Official newspaper of The University of Texas at Austin

The Daily Texan

Official newspaper of The University of Texas at Austin

The Daily Texan

Official newspaper of The University of Texas at Austin

The Daily Texan

Advertise in our classifieds section
Your classified listing could be here!
October 4, 2022
LISTEN IN

Carter-O’Connell campaign takes chilling hate speech position

SG_PORTRAIT_NEWS_EMMANUEL
Emmanuel Briseño

While well intentioned, the Feb. 24 op-ed from the Carter-O’Connell executive alliance candidate team must be examined critically, as their proposed “stand against hate speech” is an attack on free speech. The problem with Carter-O’Connell’s platform lies in their definition of, and proposed ban on, “any speech that insults a race, religion, gender, or creed.” The idea of prohibiting any speech found to be insulting is unrealistic. An individual may or may not be “insulted” by certain comments and one person’s definition of what is insulting can easily contradict another’s, creating an impassable gray area.

The definition of hate speech is speech that targets an individual or group for any number of reasons, not limited to key trigger points like race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. By the Carter-O’Connell definition, if a student “maliciously” mocks fraternity members for wearing identical, whitewashed Wrangler jeans and members find it insulting, it qualifies as hate speech. Most respond that such a statement should not be upsetting. Who is to decide the intent. or whether or not it is offensive? We understand that Carter-O’Connell did not intend for a situation like this to be included in their definition; their position is aimed at serious issues such as racist, anti-LGBT, transphobic, and Islamophobic rhetoric. Despite their intentions, all hate speech is fully protected under the First Amendment as a result of statutory interpretations.

The distinction we draw lies in the difference between hate speech and incitement through hate speech. We agree with Carter-O’Connell that incitement through hate speech has no place on our campus; in fact, federal law prohibits incitement in all forums. No student may threaten harm on another student, leading that student to fear for his or her personal safety. By law, it is acceptable to say that Joe is the worst neighbor, and you wish he would drop dead. However, you cannot say that, knowing Joe will be home at 10 p.m., you will attack him. The former is hate speech; the latter is incitement and furthermore, could qualify criminally as assault.


Carter-O’Connell briefly discussed Ku Klux Klan groups and Student Government’s role in possibly allowing them on campus. We agree with Carter-O’Connell that the KKK is a despicable organization. Yet, as long as the members are students, they have the same rights as any other student organization. They may not be forcibly silenced because of the views they espouse. Students lambast President Gregory Fenves for refusing to take a strong stance on this issue; he cannot do so without threatening UT’s standing as a respected institution of higher education. The American Civil Liberties Union would be more than willing to file suit for infringement of First Amendment rights. Don’t think so? The ACLU defended the rights of a Neo-Nazi group to march in Illinois in the 1970s. The laws on hate speech are clear; all speech is granted equal protection, as long as it does not incite a direct threat of harm against an individual or group.

Carter-O’Connell’s prohibition on offensive speech would not only be illegal, but would have a severe chilling effect on open discourse. As stated in the op-ed, Carter-O’Connell aim to make everyone feel safe on campus by encouraging students to “come as you are” and be “unapologetic of what makes you, you.” This is an honorable mission, but their goal is firmly at odds with their platform. To truly “(learn) from people that are different from us” all groups must be granted the right to share their points of view, no matter how disturbing. Otherwise, those ideas will be repressed, never debated and never resolved, luring campus into a false sense of homogeneity.

It is correct to call groups like the ones Carter-O’Connell name hate groups. Their hate speech is deeply offensive and wholly unkind, but their speech is protected and they legally have the right to be on campus. We may wish to block out these views; however, hindering legal speech accomplishes nothing, especially when the goal is to achieve an open discourse as Carter-O’Connell desire.

Taylor is a Plan II and history junior from Palo Alto, California. Cozort is a Plan II and business junior from Houston.

More to Discover
Activate Search
Carter-O’Connell campaign takes chilling hate speech position