The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Virginia Bill Would Require Rules "for the Prevention of Inequities Involving the Use of Hate Speech or Ethnically or Racially Insensitive Expressions"
"during athletic and academic competitions sponsored by the [high school athletics] organization's member schools."
The full text reads:
§ 22.1-271.9. High school interscholastic athletic and academic competition; prevention of hate speech and ethnically or racially insensitive expressions.
A. With such funds as may be appropriated by the General Assembly for such purpose pursuant to the general appropriation act, the organization governing high school athletics and academic activities for public and approved nonboarding nonpublic high schools (the organization) shall develop (i) rules and standards for the prevention of inequities involving the use of hate speech or ethnically or racially insensitive expressions during athletic and academic competitions sponsored by the organization's member schools, (ii) procedures for the enforcement of and penalties for the violation of such rules and standards, and (iii) training materials on such rules and standards.
B. Each member school of the organization shall abide by and implement the rules, standards, procedures, and penalties adopted by the organization pursuant to subsection A and shall ensure that each student who will participate in high school interscholastic athletic or academic competition, the parent of each such student, and each individual, whether paid or unpaid, who coaches a team that will participate in high school interscholastic athletic or academic competition receives and reviews the training materials developed by the organization pursuant to subsection A.
C. The organization shall make part of the process to become a registered official in good standing for any association offering services to the organization an education and training requirement that is consistent with the training materials developed by the organization pursuant to subsection A.
The bill doesn't make clear whether the rules would be limited to students or would cover spectators as well. A restriction on "hate speech" or "ethnically or racially insensitive expressions" (even if defined precisely enough by the "rules or standards" to avoid unconstitutional vagueness) by spectators would be a viewpoint-based restriction on private speech, and thus unconstitutional. There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment; but it's telling that the Legislature doesn't seem satisfied even with the ill-defined concept of "hate speech," but seeks to extend the prohibition to an even broader category of "ethnically or racially insensitive expressions."
Public schools would have more authority over vulgarities said by their students at school-sponsored events (under Bethel School Dist. No. 3 v. Fraser) and over speech that disrupts the event (under Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. School Dist.). But I doubt that all "ethnically or racially insensitive expressions" would qualify; whether "hate speech" would qualify would depend on how it's defined. (See, e.g., then-Judge Alito's opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School Dist. (3d Cir. 2001), striking down a public high school speech code.) And I doubt that the government can force private schools to impose viewpoint-based restrictions on their students, even as a condition of participating in a competitions with public schools.
Thanks to Hans Bader for the pointer.
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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Bizarrely, eliminating this particular inequity would probably require encouraging whites to use more racial epithets...
Our First Amendment jurisprudence allows for the suppression of speech about sex and the defaming of individuals but not the defaming of racial/ethnic groups.
The first limitation is almost dead. The second limitation is hemmed in by the requirement to show a false factual statement. Your suggested exception isn't.
You don't think a lot of hate speech can be shown to be factually false? The Jews really do run the world as a cabal, drink Christian baby blood, lust after Gentile women, etc? Interesting.
Speaking for myself, I don't run the world (I guess "the cabal" forgot to invite me) and definitely don't drink blood. As for lusting after Gentile women -- my mother-in-law isn't Jewish, so I guess I'll plead guilty to that one.
More importantly though, I'd much rather have you say all those things about me than let government prevent me from saying what I think about you. I guess that's the difference between us -- live & let live vs. jackbooted thugs breaking down my door to arrest me for "ethnically or racially insensitive expressions."
Yep. Plus control the weather.
But since you've exposed us, we're going to have to take up at the next meeting the issue of whether to use the space laser on you.
To allocate credit properly, wasn't it Marjorie Taylor Greene (or maybe Lauren Boebert; sometimes difficult to remember which dumbass said which bigoted, stupid thing) who educated the public concerning the Jewish space lasers?
Don't forget the killer Zionist dolphins.
No, I don't think that what you propose would be so limited.
And how would you go about proving or disproving that "Jews really do run the world as a cabal?" Interview every Jew in the world? Or just the powerful ones? Depose the Rothschilds? All of Hollywood?
These kinds of broad statements do not lend themselves to proof or disproof, even if they are outrageous.
Yeah we have a strong early contender for Dumb Analogy of the Day. He’s (intentionally?) conflating defaming with insulting.
Somehow, luckily, every Supreme Court in our history has been very careful in how they limited exceptions to the 1A.
Lots of hate speech defames the groups it targets.
"every Supreme Court in our history has been very careful in how they limited exceptions to the 1A."
You should read up on some SCOTUS history, they pretty much didn't strike down any speech restrictions until around the 1950s.
Somebody needs to defend the rights of all citizens, including racists and idiots, to have a voice.
The mere idea that we can prohibit offensive speech is itself offensive.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." (H. L. Mencken)
Around here I expect spectator misbehavior would be punished by banning all spectators.
This part is my personal favorite:
In my version of the training materials, you will be instructed to vote Republican to prevent inequity against conservatives, and if you want to become a registered official in good standing, you will be required to attend a Trump rally.
What could possibly go wrong?
Given the recent election results in Virginia, one assumes this bill will (quite rightly) be dead in the water.
Seems to me the intent is a broad way to forbid offensive sport team names, mascots, or fans/players dressing up in offensive costumes. It could also be even more broadly interpreted to forbid school cafeterias from serving ethnic foods that stereotype certain cultures. Either way, it’s very dumb and another example of the wokeness wave that has swept Virginia public education.
On the dietary front I can proudly admit I loot the entire planet to sate my palate.
Tacos and sushi? Why not?
These people, damn near every one of them, swear to uphold the constitution in their inaugural oath and then spend their terms shitting all over it because they have to try to control everything.
Yeah, trying to restrict racial epithets towards kids, the tyranny of it all!
Bong Hits 4 Jesus!
Carry on, clingers.
You and yours just gotta always be telling us what to do. Can’t leave anyone alone. Some people are just going to be assholes. All the speech codes in the world aren’t going to change that.
You and the rev consistently post shit that could be interpreted as “defamatory” to whites. You ready to go to prison for your bullshit?
I do think school officials should tell students not to direct racial epithets at other students. Oh the tyranny!
I attended a private Catholic high school. Demographically a small percentage of us came from working class families, but the vast majority came from wealth and prestige. Our sports teams were, to say the least, not very good.
I can remember the student body being lectured multiple times about not chanting from the stands "That's all right, that's OK, cause you'll be working for us some day" to the opposing teams.
Yeah, thank God that government edicts never ever exhibit mission creep.
It's silly to think government should never do something because there can be an imagined slippery slope. When it comes time to draw a line, draw it. But letting students call each other epithets while engaged in school activities is not the place to draw that line.
The individual schools can prohibit what they want, the government at large should stay out of it. There's your line
In Virginia the government funds and regulates the schools.
Having to hear awful things is the price of living in a free society. To coin a phrase, consider it a "teachable moment".
Actually, every 'society' polices people from saying certain awful things. If you cursed at your local church they'll show you the door, if you drop epithets are your workplace they've likely got a pink slip you can have, etc. You can't expect to have competitive sports with a bunch of racial epithets being traded. If you really, really, really need to drop racial epithets you can have some kind of rally with like minded people. Burn a cross or two, knock yourself out, but we can't have a workable society with that in most contexts.
Well I think there is an added complication in that there is a long tradition, if that is the appropriate term, during athletic competition of saying outrageous things to members of the opposing team to "throw them off their game". They aren't really racist or bigoted per se, rather they are a calculated statement designed to get the maximum rise out of the opposition. It might be a statement about a person's race, mother, wife, girlfriend/boyfriend, etc.
Stories abound from former NFL players about receiving calls in their hotel room the night before a game from opposing players saying the most despicable things.
What I'm trying to say is no rule is going to prevent these sort of things from happening. The most useful lesson to take home is to brush it off, not take it personally or seriously, and to stay focused on your goals, no pun intended. Words themselves have no power unless you give them an undeserving level of accord.
That's silly, words make the world go around. Words are what distinguish us as a species. They're immensely powerful (that's why those players do that!), burying our heads in the sand about it is unrealistic. When it comes to kids involved in school activities learning the 'lesson' of not taking racial epithets hurled at you is not one we need for them to be learning. Instead the 'lesson' should be on bigots, use this language at your peril.
Professor Volokh,
The “Bong hits 4 Jesus” case, among others,strongly suggests that Tinker represented a high point of First Amendment protection for public school students which has more or less been scales back over subsequent decades, making it considerably easier for school officials to justify restrictions on speech, even though their is heightened scrutiny and some justification is still required.
In particular, the Supreme Court has upheld restrictions on speech outside the standard First Amendment exception categories in this setting. It upheld punishment for mere sexual innuendo that would be protected in virtually any other setting. And the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case involved speech with no direct connection to crime facilitation, mere innuendo about a sensitive topic.
What makes a prohibition on “hate speech” any different from the prohibition on mere mention of drugs upheld in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case? I think if one looks at the cases onjectively, I’m not sure there is any resl difference.
I don’t know how the court will rule here. Traditional conservativisme tended to favor school administration discretion in matters of discipline. But the new ideological conservativism might reflexively oppose anything deemed connected to liberalism, and hence might favor the students here.
But I think objectively, based on the cases, there is a serious argument that punishing students for sensitive speech at school activities - not serious political speech but mere epithets - could be upheld even for speech that falls short of the “fighting words” standard.
The proposed statute here might well be overbroad. But I suspect a more narrowly tailored statute directed at this type of speech might well pass master.
A legislature inclined to do this might be advised to take a cue from what conservative legislatures have been doing with abortion and adapt a longer-term strategy. Start small with something more likely within permissable boundaries (e.g. only minor students, only epithets or similar done as personal insults), get some court rulings in their favor, and then work up from there, each step an incremental expansion from the previous one, using previous precedents to support going further.
"the Supreme Court has upheld restrictions on speech outside the standard First Amendment exception categories in this setting. It upheld punishment for mere sexual innuendo that would be protected in virtually any other setting. And the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case involved speech with no direct connection to crime facilitation, mere innuendo about a sensitive topic."
Don't tell beavis that!
Ask The Slants about the Supreme Court and hate speech.
It just drives you nuts that you can’t control what I say and whether or not I get vaxxed and what my opinions are. And, frankly, you and the rev chiding others for racism is a classic example of failure to remove the plank from your own eye before criticizing your neighbor for the splinter in his.
Like I said, I do want to control you if you feel the need to hurl racial epithets as children in a school setting. Oh the tyranny!
Also, what racism do you think is stuck in my eye? Give some concrete, demonstrable evidence.
It appears some uninformed chuckleheads can't distinguish an unsportsmanlike conduct foul from a censorship statute.
Bigots have rights, too.
This likely-going-nowhere bill will lather wingnuts, though, so the Volokh Conspiracy's SelectiveOutrageOMatic (model 1950) has indicated it for mention by this blog.
(There is a slight problem along this line with respect to scholastic sports. A proper approach consists of (1) penalizing participants (players and if necessary schools) for unsportsmanlike conduct and (2) continuing to relegate our vestigial bigots to a dwindling fringe of modern American society.)
The situation with student speech is, arguably, somewhat similar to the situation with establishment of religion.
There were strongly worded cases setting bright limes. But then, there started being exceptions. Marsh v. Chambers was one. But there were others.
Were those exceptions simply individual isolated sui generis cases thst had nothing to do with the general rule? Or did they suggest the formation of a new rule, with a line not newrlu as bright as previously stated?
For a long time, the cases were essentially a Roscharch test. Which way the viewer saw things - pattern suggesting a new rule emerging, or bunch of disconnected dots with no inherent meaning - was largely a function of what the viewer wanted to see.
Arguably, the current state of the law regarding speech discipline in public schools is similar.
Professor Volokh has made it no secret that he wants bright-line strict scrutiny rules maintained. So it wouldn’t be surprising if this has resulted in a certain amount of bias in the way he views the cases.
Don't schools already have options for punishment under disruptive conduct? Eject spectators, fire coaches, suspend students. It's still a school event.
Boy this is a dumb idea. Professor Voloch rightly points out that this legislation does not and cannot apply to the spectators where I'm fairly certain that 99.9% of the vulgarities originate from.