Free Speech

University of Florida Black Student Union Demands Suppression of "Hate Speech"


You can see the list of demands here; an excerpt:

The Black Student Union demands that the University of Florida:

Implements a zero-tolerance policy punishing students that use hate-speech, endangering other students…. If there is evidence of a student participating or promoting racist behavior, they will go before a board that will administer disciplinary action. We are calling for the suspension of students who have been recorded or observed using hateful and dangerous language, i.e slurs….

Prevents ACCENT [the student government-run speakers' bureau of the University of Florida] from bringing controversial speakers and encouraging more diversity in speakers. If a controversial speaker is brought into question, allow the general student body to vote via Facebook or another free platform.

You can also see the Campus Reform (Eduardo Neret) story and the WCJB-TV story.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: June 14, 1810

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Time and time again good intentions motivate us to bad actions. And so often we fail to recognize in ourselves the bad actors we become in the name of the good we seek to advance.

    Many a would-be tyrant set off nobly on heir path.

    1. *their, of course.

    2. That’s what principles are for, and too many people forget that too, or sneer at them as old-fashioned.

      Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff.

      Mind your own business.

      You own yourself and nobody else.

    3. Recall that famous exchange between Roper and More in Bolt’s “Man for All Seasons” where Roper says that More should arrest “that bad man”? More responds that he didn’t break a law and even the Devil himself, unless he breaks a law, cannot be arrested.
      Roper responds: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
      Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
      William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
      Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
      People rightly want to get the Devil, i.e., racism, and don’t care how they do it. This is where the liberal tradition is being challenged. We had this during the “Red Scares”, the McCarthy era but this one seems – feels – more dangerous (although I wasn’t around during those earlier events).

      1. Hey, I usually post that dialogue. I am offended. 😉

        1. I am offended by you being offended.

      2. In practice, of course, you don’t cut a road through the law to get to the Devil. You claim to be after the Devil in order to cut a road through the law.

        People don’t take ethical shortcuts and abolish procedural safeguards because they’re fighting monsters. They claim their opponents are monsters so that they can take the ethical shortcuts.

        1. Never let a crisis go to waste.

    4. ” a zero-tolerance policy punishing students that use hate-speech, endangering other students

      What you are missing are the key words “Endangering Other Students” — which have a specific meaning in academia post Virginia Tech.

      Over the past dozen years or so, colleges have built super-secret stat chambers where they try students in absentia. Those deemed to be a danger to others are summarily removed from the institution, with optional purported due process to follow if the student should so insist. Google “Behavioral Intervention Team.”

      Also Google “Cognitive: Aggression” — the slippery slope belief that worfs will inevitably progress into acts of violence unless the person is physically stopped.

      1. Star Chambers. Grrrrr…..

      2. You mean LTCDR Worf of the Starship Enterprise?

          1. And not surprisingly. this…..

            It’s the unified left….

            1. Anyone who uses JD as a post-nominal is a person who should not be taken seriously.

              1. I paid for the title. I’m going to use it.

                I’ve known a few non-medical doctors over the years. Fortunately none have used the title. Most I didn’t know had doctorates until I asked about their education.

      3. If anyone is threatening another student, the proper authorities, the Police, should be handling it.

        If people are not being threatened, then these union goons should learn some tolerance.

        1. Wearing a MAGA hat is threatening behavior….

          1. Only because they don’t call the real authorities, who would laugh hysterically at them.

            The schools think they are able and deserving of adjudicating such disputes…..they are not.

    5. Yeah, but I don’t think they were acting with good intentions. I think they intended just what they said. That is, they want to punish those who don’t think like they do and have the temerity to say what they think outloud.

      1. “…they want to punish those who don’t think like they do and have the temerity to say what they think outloud.”

        In other words, University of Florida Black Student Union are a bunch of fascists.

  2. The Volokh Conspiracy has become the Tucker Carlson Tonight of the blogosphere.

    1. Hello, Rachel. Insightful as always.

      1. I forgive you, and Prof. Volokh, because — as with Tucker Carlson — it must be difficult to know how to act when your stale, clinger world is capsizing about you .

        1. That stale, clinger world of due process, “good faith” arguments, peaceful resolution of debates, rule of law.
          Tell us again how you’re the only “real” libertarian in these parts? That’s always good for a good laugh.

          1. Steve, he’ll feel differently when (not “if”) he gets dragged before one of these ubiquitous Star Chambers — he might even “disappear into the night.”

          2. Do not engage. You have nothing to gain. There are plenty of us who will read your comments and respond to them.

          3. I think AK is going to have a “civil liberties for all” kind a revelation one of these nights. Maybe he will get a chance to post his thoughts in full before he reaps the reward he is sowing.

          4. “Tell us again how you’re the only “real” libertarian in these parts?”

            I am not the only “real” libertarian in these parts. I am not a “real” libertarian.

            There are no real libertarians in these parts. There are no “often libertarians” in these parts. (Prof. Somin comes closest.) Mostly in this context the claims of libertarianism involve sheepish, defensive conservatives parading around in silly, unconvincing libertarian drag.

            Libertarians For Authoritarian Immigration Policies.

            Libertarians For Statist Womb Management.

            Libertarians For Using The Military Against Peaceful Protesters.

            Libertarians For Government Gay-Bashing.

            Libertarians For Tariffs And Protectionism.

            Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics.

            Libertarians For Banning Commenters Who Make Fun Of Conservatives.

            Libertarians For Militarization Of Police.

            Libertarians For Keeping God In The Pledge Of Allegiance.

            Libertarians For The Drug War.

            Libertarians For Bloated Military Budgets.

            Libertarians For The Patriot Act.

            Libertarians For Torture And Endless Detention Without Trial.

            You know, Ted Cruz-class libertarians.

            1. “You know, Ted Cruz-class libertarians.”

              Damn, nailed me.

              Of course Cruz has had experience in his family about where idealogical purity tests lead to. Which is a feature for you, not a drawback.

              1. Ted Cruz is your kind of libertarian?

                Boy, are you going to hate the next 50 years of American progress.

        2. I forgive you

          I knew there was a reason you reminded me of Amon Goeth (Ralph Fienne’s character in Schindler’s List):


    2. It’s a 1A/freedom of expression matter, a civil libertarian matter, and squarely within the areas VC generally discusses. You are as ignorant as always., Kirkland. This ‘winning’ the culture war will be short-lived if the ‘superiority’ of the progressive commenters here is any indicator.

      1. He only supports those principles when they help his cause, help his side attain power. For him it’s all about “winning.” If these principles are obstacles to his goal of “winning” then they can be discarded. And those that adhere to them can be dismissed as “clingers” and not “real” libertarians.
        Hah, he likes to lecture everyone here on what “real” libertarians – i.e., him – should believe in. That’s rich.

        1. Keep clinging to those Confederate monuments and base names . . . and, after the progress continues against your wishes, you can continue crying into those Confederate flags you like to clutch.

  3. Since hate speech is only against minorities anyone accused of hate speech should be kicked out of school and not accepted at any other school. If the school does not to that then the professors should not allow that student into their class. With actions as this would soon eliminate hate speech!

    1. But then the schools will be full of minorities only, the haters will be the minority, and the schools will have to kick the now-majorities out for their hate speech against the haters! Round and round we go, everyone gets one semester of education, then kicked to the curb for the next minority.

      1. Except that some people are more equal than others.

    2. Since hate speech is only against minorities anyone accused of hate speech should be kicked out of school and not accepted at any other school. If the school does not to that then the professors should not allow that student into their class.

      Ummmm — Federal Courts have been ruling the former unconstitutional* for over 3 decades now, and the latter two strike me as violations of both the RICO & Sherman Acts. IHEs got into trouble for sharing a list of Fin Aid award amounts, they won’t for a list of banned students?

      And professors refusing to let students into their classes strikes me as grounds for revoking tenure as well…

      * At public IHEs, which the vast majority of students attend.

    3. That’s not a bad idea.

      I think conservatives are handling the collapse of the education system all wrong, instead of trying to prevent the universities from tearing down their own houses, let them.

      It will just accelerate the process of rebuilding real centers of learning and leave behind the idealoges that are only concerned with political indoctrination.

      1. This fall will be interesting.
        If even 60 Minutes admits that state universities will be in trouble — that is significant. I’m thinking implosion….

    4. I agree with you 100% as long as I get to define what constitutes hate speech.

  4. If there’s going to be a democratic vote on student activities, then the Florida taxpayers who subsidize those activities should get a vote too. Which, of course, would bring the demands for “democracy” on the subject to a screeching halt.

    1. I hear all stakeholders should have a vote.

  5. I think this list of demands by the University of Florida Black Student Union is hateful and dangerous.

    1. With that attitude you’ll never make it big as a university administrator.

      1. Sadly, Steve, you are right, and that’s the problem.
        And woe to any aspiring administrator who cites these cases:

    2. Indeed and it should be prohibited at the school.

      1. That seems to be, sadly at this point, the only way of countering this worldview. Appeals to the “liberal tradition”, of free speech, of “good faith” arguments doesn’t work. Since many of this “woke” crowd views those as lies used by white supremacists and others to maintain power.
        The only option is a type of “Mutual Assured Destruction” where you threaten to silence them, to squelch their views. If they realize that these threats can be used equally against them, that they can be silenced too, then they may sue for peace. “I won’t nuke you if you don’t nuke me.”
        I don’t want to do this – then everything is about power – but I don’t know what else will work.

        1. Steve — it’s all about power and the fact that they know that they won’t be silenced because they have license to resort to violence, Look at how the so-called “sports team” riots of the ’90s & ’00s were viewed as opposed to the BLM riots of today. A tumultuous mob of young adults is a tumultuous mob of young adults, but some mobs are more equal than others.

          1. some mobs are more equal than others
            Like with inconsistent enforcement of COVID restrictions, the ends justify the means.

  6. The idea that only whites are racist is a racist statement and; therefore, hate speech.

  7. Scratch a liberal, uncover a fascist.

    1. Scratch a conservative, watch the backwardness and bigotry ooze.

      Or, better yet, just shove more progress down the clingers’ whimpering throats.

      1. Scratch our Reverend, and maybe you’ll win the lotto.

    2. So said the Emperor Leto in GOD EMPEROR OF DUNE IIRC.

  8. All I see when I click on the link is the letter. How do I see the list?

    1. Halfway down the page, if you hover over the right hand side, there’s a small arrow pointing to the right which allows you to flip to the next page with the demands

      1. Thanks.

        They look kind of silly to me.

        1. You’re welcome.

          They may look silly, until people actually take them seriously put them into place. Then there are serious implications that aren’t silly.

          1. People thought Hitler was silly.

  9. Any university that allows students use hate speech should lose federal aid. Now the way to not lose federal aid would be as soon as hate speech on or off campus is discovered that student would be ejected from that school and if the student goes to another school and applies the fact that the student was ejected from the school would also be on the transcript to protect then next school and its students.

    1. Can you say “US District Court”? RAV was 9-0 and that was a SCOTUS considerably to the left of the current one.

    2. Then stifents who refuse to stand for the National Anthem could be expelled?

      1. No. The definition of hate speech would depend on the target.

  10. The way to suppress hate speech is to suppress the person(s) that uses it. When a student or professor uses it on or off campus and it comes to light that student or professor would be kick out of the university and have the record follow that person that it was because of hate speech.

    1. Much as being “Banned in Boston” meant success elsewhere, an unknown college could quickly become quite famous by ONLY admitting/hiring those with your scarlet letter.

      You do know that there is a shortage of college students, don’t you?

    2. In my opinion Curly4, what you’ve just said is hate speech. And I think you should lose your job or your business and become unemployable or prohibited from starting a new business.

  11. It is strange hearing from groups who believe institution “X” or “Y” is racist and unjust and created to systematically oppress them then turn around and demand that that same evil institution “X” or “Y” cede to their demands. Demands and not appeals.
    If you truly believed that institution “X” was thoroughly controlled by evil people who were against you, who oppress you daily and don’t care about you in any way, then you really wouldn’t think, it seems to me, that it would listen to your demands. They hate you, they’re against you; why would they listen to you?
    I don’t think, to pick an obvious horrific example, that Jews in Germany sent to the camps really thought appeals, certainly not demands, to the Nazi controlled judiciary for habeas or due process would work.

  12. These students should be required to take a course on Voltaire

    1. You are dealing with people who chant “Fuck the First Amendment.”

      They couldn’t comprehend Voltaire.

      1. I’m out to win ain’t no pretendin’, fuck the first amendment
        My speech was free, the day that my soul descended

  13. We can’t have nice things as long as shvartz be around.

  14. What fun!
    “Demands” 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are themselves racist.
    Demand 1 does not allow for a finding of “not guilty”; all who come before the star chamber are to be punished.

    Never mind the police; defund all college grants, loans, or any other source of revenue.

    1. I’m onboard. Running/funding colleges is not a proper function of government.

  15. For those who want to take a jump back into history to see how speech codes actually worked one time at a public college campus, go back and read the facts in Doe v. Michigan. The speech regulations there were in effect for about eight months and most of the prosecutions for violating it were against minorities.

    I think these “activists” quickly forget that the tools of oppression they advocate for, when applied equally, tend to have a disproportionate effect on them in the end. It is all fun and games when you are the politically favored party, enjoy “immunity” from the same standards you are looking to enforce, and get hand out your form of justice with impunity. But once that facade fades away, the tables usually end up turning.

    1. Not widely mentioned is that a disproportionate percentage of the male students dragged before the Title IX Korts are Black.

  16. This is an odd demand:

    8. Provides all Black faculty workers and custodians with name tags to ensure that they are able to be properly addressed and respected.

    1. I think they meant “facility workers” and not “faculty workers” now that I read it again. Makes slightly more sense…

    2. Does anyone respect people more because they are wearing name tags?

  17. Also odd the extoll the virtues of the First Amendment in your preamble to the demands, while then demanding the university trash it. I doubt they realized the irony of this though when writing it down.

    “Over the past week, our nation has witnessed the power of our 1st Amendment rights, exhibited through acts of protests, intentional informative communication, and civic engagement.”

    1. Not just odd — Orwellian. In their book, rioting is constitutionally protected “free speech.” Actual speech which they find offensive is criminally punishable “hate crimes.”

  18. So they want to suppress dissing the national anthem?

  19. I’m waiting for this site to do a story on the UCLA professor who was put on leave for refusing to give black students special privileges on an exam due to the George Floyd situation.

    In other words: he was punished for not racially discriminating.

    1. Wait no more — indeed, wait four days less! See this post from the 10th.

      1. Now go into the future and lookup the winning lottery numbers.

  20. The real power is being the person who determines whether

    (1) Your speech is constitutionally protected free speech
    (2) Your speech is hate speech,and the power of the government will be used to shut you down.

    How does one qualify for this position??

  21. This country is too far gone. Let it burn.

    1. Dude, this is one dumb student union in one school.

      If you can’t help but become anti-American due to the examples this blog highlights, maybe you should step away.

      1. This is the audience the Conspiracy has carefully cultivated. Disaffected culture war casualties, enraged by decades of American progress, clinging to their guns, religion, racial slurs, and Confederal monuments.

        1. the Conspiracy


          Open wider Rev.

      2. If you really think this is “one school,” and not representative of the left, you’re either dishonest or delusional. Take your pick.

        1. Ah, yes. If I don’t agree with your confirmation bias, I must be lying or dumb.

          Well, enjoy your hatred of America! Based upon past posts of yours, I’m kinda excited to be in a country you cannot stand.

  22. “Prevents ACCENT [the student government-run speakers’ bureau of the University of Florida] from bringing controversial speakers and encouraging more diversity in speakers.”

    Self-contradictory nonsense has no race.

    1. Does that mean the want to ban “progressives” who conservative s object to?

      1. If you were to ask them, they’d probably tell you that conservatives are, by definition, perpetrators of “hate speech” who should be removed from the University (and, even better, lock up somewhere). So there wouldn’t be anyone left to object to “progressive” speakers.

    2. While “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” apparently the University of Florida Black Student Union thinks themselves up to the task.

Please to post comments