For instance, Stanford law professor Charles R. Lawrence III told an ACLU conference that "if society understands the necessity of eliminating the system of signs and symbols that signal the inferiority of blacks, then we should hesitate before proclaiming that all racist speech that stops short of physical violence must be defended" (340). Professor Lawrence is inconsistent with his call of hesitation. While society may condemn the use of such signs, symbols, and speech, society does not agree that government or universities should outlaw them. Violence or illegal action taken because of speech is to be condemned strongly by the proper authorities, but the speech should not be silenced. Also, "courts have held that offensive speech may not be regulated in public forums such as streets where the listener may avoid the speech by moving on, but the regulation of otherwise protected speech has been permitted when the speech invades the privacy of the unwilling listener's home or when the unwilling listener cannot avoid the speech" (341, Lawrence). Some common places for these cases are in bathrooms, dormitories, fliers, and racist posters. The minorities should be able to find a safe place in their dorms and in all other common rooms that are a part of their daily routine. It should not be mandatory of the minority students to remain in their rooms in order to avoid racial assault. Moreover, new policies need not be drafted because laws already exist to protect individuals against illegal actions. It is important to distinguish between words and action. Rather than implement rigid speech codes as a solution, universities should stress personal responsibility of those who speak and act. While words may incite people to action, the Constitution and the laws of the United States direct us to support the freedom of speech of individuals, and condemn the actions that harm. .
The imposition of college speech codes clearly violates the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and expression.
