Stephen Wellman

A lone professor of philosophy at West Virginia University is crying foul about a speech code while the school denies its existence.

Philosophy professor Daniel Shapiro is responsible for investigating the code and bringing it to public attention. During the course of his investigation, he discovered a litany of dos and don’ts involving speech and interaction on the campus.

While the code claims to deal only with issues of harassment and discrimination, it defines "sexism," "racism," and "homophobia" in terms of speech and interaction and even goes so far as to list punishment for these offences (punishment consisting of something vaguely titled, "educational remediation"). This code is a part of the agenda of the university’s administration, fulfilling what University President David Hardesty has termed the "goal of creating a multicultural learning experience for students."

This controversy began last year when Alan Kors, a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, was giving a lecture on campus. During the course of his speech, he revealed the existence of a speech code at WVU that was posted on the web site of the university’s Office of Social Justice.

Shapiro decided after this announcement to investigate the matter. He contacted the President of the university as well as the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. University President David Hardesty, in his first response to Dr. Shapiro, did not confirm or deny the status of the material as speech codes. He referred to the "policies of the Office of Social Justice," and defended these policies as a legitimate area of student conduct for the university to legislate.

Seeking clarification, Shapiro contacted Robert Bastress, President of the ACLU of West Virginia and professor of law at WVU. In response, Bastress wrote Jon Reed, an attorney in WVU office of General Counsel. Reed simply questioned the material and expressed doubts as to whether it was actually a speech code. He defended the Office of Social Justice stating that "at first the materials you provided from the Social Justice web site appear to be general educational background information rather than statements of policy." If, however, this material was simply educational background, then why was it so specific in detailing the terms of the specific crime of harassment and punishment for it and other offenses?

Reed wrote Bastress, "these pages might be misconstrued to be some sort of speech code." He informed Bastress that the material on the web site "has been removed; but the University’s policy against unlawful discrimination remains on the web." Reed also stated that "the University’s administration has quite intentionally tried to steer away from creating any sort of speech code on campus."

The university’s reaction to this speech code is muddled with confusion. They initially denied that the material on the web site was a speech code. Then, they removed it from the web site, stating that it "might be misconstrued to be some sort of speech code."

After removing the code, Reed then defended the material in the codes describing them as "general guidance as to the kinds which might, given the right circumstances, lead someone to file charges of discrimination or charges of creating an unlawful hostile environment. I do not believe she [the author of the material on the web site] was attempting to stifle open discussion or to inhibit people from expressing their views." If this material was a guide on how to file complaints and law suits, then would that not qualify it as a code?

Peggy Douglas, executive director of the Office of Social Justice, stated that she thought the materials on the web site were "educational brochures." Although she granted that the language in the "brochures" was "problematic," she maintained that she had not written the speech code and that they pre-dated her appointment to the office. Douglas removed these "brochures" from circulation, both in printed form and on the web site. She admitted that she was "offended by the material" and that she did not think it was a "good way to educate."

Douglas explained to Campus Report, "I don’t consider the P.C. material to have been a speech code." On the matter of the "problematic" language in the "brochures," "my predecessor just had a different style then I do." She never denied the existence of a speech code at WVU. She was, in fact, rather cryptic about the existence of a speech code, stating that as far as she knew, there was no code. She was also unable to provide any instances of students being prosecuted for violating the university’s standards on harassment.

Jackie Dooley, of the Office of Affirmative Action, which is responsible for enforcing the university’s non-discrimination policy, said, "We investigate all types of discrimination: gender, race, religion, etc." When questioned about the means of initiating an investigation, she stated, "Anyone can make a complaint. We then write a recommendation and send that to the appropriate office." She stated that her office has the power to investigate anyone assuming there is a "valid" complaint. She insisted on the need for a legitimate complaint, but when pressed, she was never able to present criteria for staring an investigation.

When asked about the frequency of investigations she said, "we have investigations all the time." Dooley was unable to confirm or deny the existence of the speech code, simply stating, "I don’t know." She was also unable to provide the names of any students who had been investigated or who had been punished for such allegations. On further inquires about the speech code, she simply deferred to the Office of Social Justice.

It is still not clear as to whether or not this material was, or even still is, a speech code. No one in the administration actually condemned the material; it was simply criticized for its "problematic" language. Even though this material is no longer in print, it is very difficult to determine whether or not it is being enforced by the university, much less whether it ever was.

As Professor Shapiro said in his essay, "Is Free Speech in Peril at West Virginia University?," "Well, we don’t know if they [the codes] are gone. All we know is that they have been removed from the OSJ web sites, but do they exist elsewhere? Until we know that speech codes are dead forever, free speech remains in jeopardy at WVU."