The FIRE website discusses a “hate speech” policy being considered by a Wisconsin school district. It’s outrageous even among current attempts to stifle speech. Here’s the draft policy for the Baraboo school district, so you don’t have to take FIRE’s word for it.

It starts with the favorite lie of censorship advocates: “Hate speech is not protected speech.” It invents an exception to the First Amendment out of whole cloth.

It restricts the speech not only of students but of employees, including statements made outside of work in some cases. It mandates reporting employees and students who engage in forbidden speech. What it prohibits is sweeping. Like many censorship advocates, the creators of the proposal use the term “hate speech” for speech which they hate and want to ban. They define it as “any form of communication that attacks, threatens, degrades, or insults a person or group based on their race, color, national origin, ancestry, creed, age, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender variance, or any other group.”

“Any other group.” This amounts to prohibiting saying anything negative about anyone based on their affiliation. Applied consistently, it would ban denunciations of the Mafia or the KKK. Or the school officials who devised the policy. If the First Amendment really had such an exception in its “freedom of speech” clause, it might as well not have the clause. Of course, such policies are never intended to be applied evenly. Groups that the school officials dislike could be insulted freely. Say something bad about their political party, though…

Even reading some texts aloud for teaching purposes would be forbidden. The way it’s expressed adds to the dishonesty: “However, we, as a district, are choosing not to read aloud slurs in texts that we teach.” This tries to make it appear that it’s the teacher’s decision, when it’s clearly not. Banning words gives them power. Teaching students that certain words mustn’t be read aloud creates or enhances fear of them. In fact, that’s the explicit intention of the policy: “By disallowing the usage of slurs, even when it comes to reading a text out loud, we are demonstrating to our students that words have power.” Power before which they must be mute.

The requirements of the prohibition create logical knots: “In addition to not reading the word aloud, staff members are expected to acknowledge to students that while this word/phrase exists in this text and may be seen as having literary value, the words will not be read or spoken in class. The staff member should share with students why the words are not being shared referencing the reasons shared above.” Imagine how it might go in school:

Teacher: “I have to skip over the next two sentences of Hitler’s speech, because it includes the word …” (hesitates)

Student: “What word?”

Teacher: “I’m not allowed to tell you. But it’s a word that exists in this text and has literary value.”

Student: “Why aren’t you allowed to tell us?”

Teacher: “Because words have power.”

Student: “So you’re saying some words are too scary to hear?”

Teacher: “Well, yes. Tell you what. Look up George Carlin’s ‘Seven Words You Can’t Say on TV’ on YouTube. That’ll explain it. But be careful not to quote anything from it.”

This isn’t a policy that the Baraboo district has enacted. According to FIRE, it’s been “tabled.” But it needs to be shot, chopped into small bits, and encased in carbonite.

Some other cases

Meanwhile, closer to my home, school officials in Bow, NH continue to claim it’s legitimate for them to ban protests. I discussed this case earlier; it still hasn’t been resolved. Superintendent Marcy Kelley said, “When we suspect there’s some sort of threat … we don’t wait for it to happen.” No evidence of a threat is needed, only their suspicion that something might happen. It’s the perfect cover for viewpoint discrimination. In this case, the supposedly dangerous protest consisted of wearing a wristband.

In Louisiana, the state government is pushing compulsory religious speech. A law orders all public schools to post a part of an ancient civilization’s religious mandates in a specific English translation. It’s been challenged, and I expect it will be struck down.