Discussion

Discussion

Discussion

The limits of free speech have always been a subject of argument between colleges and universities. It shows itself once more in the case of Doug Hann, when he started throwing out abusive, racial and religious words at black and Jewish people. This wasn't the first time that Mr. Hann did this. But surely, this was the incident that cost him to lose his educational future and accordingly he expelled from Brown University. Since there is free speech, Hann should not have been expelled from Brown University even though he passed the barrier on expressing hateful, racial, and religious ideas. He only spoke flagrantly; he didn't physically harm anyone which would have broken the university laws.

On the night of October 18, 1990, Hann was celebrating his twenty-first birthday. With the effect of the alcohol, he got drunk and lost control over his actions. First, he shouted racial insults against a black student. Then, he threw out religiously abusive words to the person who seemed Jewish to Hann. These actions resulted in an expulsion from Brown University. According to Gregorian, the president of Brown University, this happened because he showed some actions, which violated the university rules (395). On the other hand, witnesses told the story as he had an abusive speech, but there was nothing more than that.

Unfortunately, Hann was not getting his education at a university where the president of the university identifies that there are some students, like Hann, who needed individual help. If that was the kind of university that Hann was attending, the university committee would have moved him to another dormitory, and also they would have placed him in a race relations workshop to get counseling. Whereas at Brown University, all he got was an expulsion from the University and he lost the opportunity of getting more advanced education. This was happened just because of his speech that took a couple of minutes.

As the President of Brown University said, "The university code of conduct does not prohibit speech; it prohibits actions and behaviors" (Gregorian 395). Also, on "offence number three - which deals with harassment- prohibits inappropriate, demeaning actions based on race, religion or ethnicity" (Hentoff 392). The university committee missed the point that this statement does not prohibit words, epithets or slanders. If we consider what Hann did, it is very easy to determine that he was punished because of his speech. What if he ...