To stop the defamation of the Jewish people... to secure justice and fair treatment to all
Responding to Campus Bigotry
Taking Action Against Hate
Hate Crimes and Bias Incidents
Table of Contents
Download the Complete Guide (822 kb)
(Adobe Acrobat Reader Required)
Get Acrobat Reader

Help ADL Combat Hate on the Internet!

Contribute to ADL
Responding to Bigotry and Intergroup Strife on Campus:
Guide for College and University Administrators RULE
Responding to Campus Bigotry
  • Hate and the Campus Media
    • Legal Analysis
    • Suggested Action Steps
  • Speech Codes in University Policies
    • Legal Analysis
    • Suggested Action Steps
  • Speech in the Classroom
    • Legal Analysis
    • Suggested Action Steps
  • Extremist Speakers on Campus
    • Legal Analysis
    • Suggested Action Steps
  • Speech at Rallies and Protests
    • Legal Analysis
    • Suggested Action Steps
  • Vandalism and Graffiti
    • Legal Analysis
    • Suggested Action Steps
  • Hate on the Internet
    • Legal Analysis
    • Suggested Action Steps
  • Developing Collaborative Programs with International Universities
    • Legal Analysis
    • Suggested Action Steps



    The campus media are a natural venue for the expression of ideas.  Hate groups may take advantage of this and place paid advertisements, paid inserted supplements, opinion/editorial articles and letters to the editor in campus newspapers and other publications. This was a favorite, high-profile tactic of the Holocaust denial movement in the late 1990s, which succeeded in placing such materials in publications on more than 200 campuses.

    Editors should be aware that privately owned publications have editorial autonomy to decide what they will and will not publish. Courts generally view student newspapers (even those at public schools) as private when student editors, and not school administrators, make the decisions about content and advertising policies. University regulation and subsidization do not transform a newspaper from a private body into an arm of the state or university.  

    Despite their claims, extremist groups have no legitimate First Amendment right to have their advertisements placed in campus publications. The First Amendment guarantees that they may stand in public areas speaking hateful messages, hold meetings and send racist fliers through the mail and the government cannot censor or punish them. However, the First Amendment does not secure anyone the right to be placed in a private newspaper. Private companies are not bound by the constraints of the First Amendment, and individuals have no First Amendment right to force a private, professional or college newspaper to run a story or advertisement. One federal appellate court observed: “The right to freedom of speech does not open every avenue to one who desires to use a particular outlet for expression.”1 Determining the paper’s editorial content and deciding what stories to print is solely the province of editors.

    • Since campus newspaper staff change from year to year, educate campus newspaper editors on a continuing basis about their journalistic responsibilities. Proactive outreach is needed before any bigoted advertisements, articles or opinion pieces are received.
    • Advise student editors to devise and record an advertising policy, which they can reference when declining to run hateful ads.

    • Encourage students to use the campus media as a tool for civil and respectful dialogue instead of hate or bigotry.
    • Encourage the student leadership of the campus media to engage their staff in a dialogue regarding their rights and responsibilities as journalists.
    • Encourage faculty members and top administrators to take a public stand against the use of the campus newspaper to spread hateful propaganda. Administrators always have the right to criticize an article or the decisions made by newspaper staff.


    Effective intervention is critical to dealing with hate in college communities. Although some institutions of higher learning have developed speech codes designed to provide severe consequences for hate speech on campus, many of these codes have been repealed or declared unconstitutional. One of the main reasons that they are repealed is that the limitations on speech are overbroad and may infringe on First Amendment rights.  Federal and state court decisions regarding university and college speech/conduct codes suggest that these codes need to be very carefully drafted in order to be constitutional.

    ADL does not recommend broad, sweeping speech codes, because such codes raise serious constitutional problems and tend to hamper the free exchange of ideas. Instead, the League suggests that colleges and universities develop constitutionally sound policies that will serve the important institutional objective of protecting the targets of hate.

    • Speak out against prejudice and bigoted expressions. While administrators at private institutions have more freedom of action to regulate behavior than do their counterparts at public institutions, both can and should provide firm and unambiguous leadership in this area.
    • Do not tolerate or accept abusive discourse without a vigorous response. Those who misuse their freedom of expression to offend, demean, intimidate or insult members of the academic community need to understand that their words are unacceptable in a civilized atmosphere, whether or not they are protected by the First Amendment.
    • Emphasize the prohibition of hostile conduct or behavior that incites immediate violence and is likely to prompt such violence, in contrast to expressive offensive speech.
    • Increase the penalties for alcohol-related hate acts or utterances.  Most campus conduct codes allow the imposition of disciplinary sanctions for disorderly conduct or violations of alcohol and drug policies.  When imposing penalties for student code violations, it may be constitutionally permissible to address biased acts or utterances as an added component to be considered.
    • Increase the penalties for any behavioral conduct already forbidden in campus regulations when that behavior clearly was motivated by bigotry.  


    The U.S. Supreme Court has maintained a deep commitment to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of “transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.”2  As the Court held, “the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas.’” Id.3

    The Supreme Court has emphasized the responsibility of a university to provide an atmosphere which is most conducive to an exploration of ideas and where “the four essential freedoms” of a university prevail.  The “four essential freedoms” of a university are “to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught and who may be admitted to study.”4 In order to create this environment, the administration must ensure that academic freedom is being upheld by all divisions of the campus community.

    Students have a right to learn in a classroom environment without intimidation based on their perspectives. While this does not mean that students should only hear views with which they agree, it does mean that the professor should be encouraged to create an environment where multiple perspectives can be expressed without fear of academic penalty. 

    In its 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors maintained that “teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”5  This sentiment remains a foundation of professionalism in the field.

    Any discussion of academic freedom must include the balance between the professor’s right to teach and conduct research and the student’s right to learn.  Individual professors are entitled to their personal and professional perspectives on religion, politics, history, current events, etc. These various perspectives are crucial to the academic process and environment. However, faculty members are hired as experts in their field and to educate students on a specific subject. When faculty enter the classroom, it is their duty to present their subject in a competent and professional manner. It is also their duty to consider the appropriateness and the impact of classroom discussions of controversial issues that do not relate to the curriculum.

    The American Council of Trustees and Alumni commissioned a survey of 658 undergraduate students from 25 top liberal arts colleges and 25 top universities to investigate intimidation in the classroom based on political ideology. In this survey, 49 percent of the respondents stated that professors frequently comment on politics in class, even when it has nothing to do with the course. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents said that there are courses on their campus where they believe they have to agree with the professors political or social views in order to get a good grade. 6

    Protecting the Faculty
    Faculty members also can be victims of intimidation. It is a professor’s responsibility to challenge students to think critically and explore different perspectives on a curricular topic. In general, people often resist information that challenges their own political beliefs and values. Therefore, students may be particularly resistant to course content that challenges their views or requires them to move beyond their comfort zones. A frequent method for students to express their disapproval of a professor is through a course evaluation. Therefore, broad ideological differences between students and professors (or the course content) can result in more negative evaluations from students.7 Since tenure is partially determined by student evaluations at the end of each course, faculty members may avoid teaching controversial topics. Higher education should afford students a wide range of learning opportunities that teach students how to think critically and analytically to prepare them to live in a diverse world.  When professors feel intimidated or unable to introduce controversial or varied course content, they are not able to offer those learning opportunities. As long as the topic is relevant to the course, faculty members should not be hesitant to introduce certain perspectives or curriculum based on their fear of adverse employment action, such as poor course evaluations, lack of tenure or even termination. In order to help clarify a faculty member’s academic freedom, in 2005 the American Council on Education (ACE) and 29 higher education organizations issued a Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities.8

    The American Council on Education’s Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities outlines the importance of intellectual diversity and the specific challenges that accompany academic freedom. Below are some relevant highlights from that report:
    • American higher education is characterized by a great diversity of institutions, each with its own mission and purpose. This diversity is a central feature and strength of our colleges and universities and must be valued and protected.  The particular purpose of each school, as defined by the institution itself, should set the tone for the academic activities undertaken on campus. 
    • Colleges and universities should welcome intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas.  Such a commitment will inevitably encourage debate over complex and difficult issues about which individuals will disagree.  Such discussions should be held in an environment characterized by openness, tolerance and civility.
    • Neither students nor faculty should be disadvantaged or evaluated on the basis of their political opinions.  Any member of the campus community who believes he or she has been treated unfairly on academic matters must have access to a clear institutional process by which his or her grievance can be addressed. 
    • The validity of academic ideas, theories, arguments and views should be measured against the intellectual standards of relevant academic and professional disciplines.  Application of these intellectual standards does not mean that all ideas have equal merit.  The responsibility to judge the merits of competing academic ideas rests with colleges and universities and is determined by reference to the standards of the academic profession as established by the community of scholars at each institution. 
    • Government’s recognition and respect for the independence of colleges and universities is essential for academic and intellectual excellence.   Because colleges and universities have great discretion and autonomy over academic affairs, they have a particular obligation to ensure that academic freedom is protected for all members of the campus community and that academic decisions are based on intellectual standards consistent with the mission of each institution.
    • Educate the campus community on the definitions of freedom of speech and academic freedom.
    • Develop clear grievance procedures for students to report faculty intimidation. 
    • Identify a specific point person(s) who will handle student complaints regarding faculty. Provide training to the point person(s) on the protocols for response.  
    • Actively communicate the grievance procedure to all students, faculty, staff and administrators. Instruct all university staff members to contact the point person(s) if a student approaches them with a complaint. 
    • Encourage professors to provide a venue during or after class for students to express any frustrations or concerns and to take those concerns seriously.
    Encourage department heads to attend classes throughout the semester. This approach will provide administrators with a first-hand perspective of the faculty’s teaching style and the student’s attitudes toward the professor.


    Speech on public campuses is generally protected by the First Amendment and equivalent state constitutional protections. It is crucial to keep in mind that hateful speech is not necessarily unlawful speech.  In general, speeches at a political protest rally on a university campus are protected from discipline by public schools, so long as no specific threats were directed at an individual student or group of students.

    Administrators should be aware of the thin line between providing a forum and being a sponsoring promoter. Regardless of whether a speaker is invited by the administration or by students, once a public university has created a forum on its campus for the kind of speech in question, First Amendment protections will apply.  A public college is, however, constitutionally permitted to place certain time, place and manner restrictions on speech as long as the restrictions are reasonable, apply to everyone and do not discriminate according to viewpoint. 

    Private universities are free, within the law, to define their own missions, and have greater leeway in restricting speech than public universities. However, many private universities are subject to federal loan regulations, state constitutions or state laws that limit their right to curb free speech in much the same way as the First Amendment. As federal funds recipients, they also may be subject to federal anti-discrimination law. 

    While academic freedom protects much speech, it does not protect hostile environments.   Colleges and universities are required to provide a learning environment that is safe and free from hostility for all students.  A school violates its duty to prevent a hostile environment when (1) a hostile environment exists; (2) the school has notice of the problem and does not utilize the mechanisms in place to notify the community; and (3) it fails to respond adequately to remedy the situation.  Students may have rights for protection from harassment under Title VI. 

    Remember, the First Amendment limits the government’s ability to restrict speech. The First Amendment does not require that those who disagree with certain speech remain silent. Critical discourse is not a form of censorship and must not be seen as an affront to academic freedom. After all, such criticism is also free speech. Thus, when a known hate speaker comes to campus the university administration should not remain silent. University administrators have the right and responsibility to speak out against and condemn hate speech.

    When campus administrators stand aside and do not speak out, conflict tends to deepen and spread, sharply polarizing the campus community and inviting public scrutiny. Prompt and direct administrative statements, especially from the president, provide direction and moral certainty and allow the campus to process the incident, while at the same time buttressing the institution’s public image.  

    • Ensure the safety of all members of the campus community in cooperation with campus law enforcement. 
    • Issue an immediate statement condemning the speaker’s views as both intolerant and intolerable. Be specific, direct, responsive and concerned in the public statements. Mention the speaker by name and condemn the speech’s content.
    • Reduce the tension, and potential anxiety, created by the extremist speaker’s presence by sponsoring alternative forums, structured dialogue, anti-bias training, educational programming and other appropriate interventions. Empower students to be part of the planning and implementation of these forums.
    • Make certain that the speech is held in a reasonably secure location. In most cases, admission can be limited to those with valid university ID cards.
    • Encourage an organized question and answer session that is conducted in a calm, non-intimidating atmosphere.
    • Ensure that security for the event is entirely under the Institution’s control. Speakers should not be allowed to place their own private security force inside or outside the auditorium without thorough coordination with the campus and local authorities.


    Rules on campus set forth in a student code of conduct apply with equal force to student or faculty speech at political protest rallies. Speech outside the legitimate scope of the rally that is profane, threatening, an incitement to violence or directed specifically against an individual student based on his race, religion, gender, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability can be disciplined by the university.9 Speech within the scope of the rally and directed to a general audience, however, is not punishable.10

    More generally, colleges and universities are required to provide a learning environment that is safe and free from hostility for all students. A school violates its duty to prevent a hostile environment when (1) a hostile environment exists; (2) the school has notice of the problem and does not utilize the mechanisms in place to notify the community; and (3) it fails to respond adequately to remedy the situation.  In addition, students may also have rights for protection from harassment under Title VI,11 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

    Federal law prohibits federally funded schools from allowing hostile environments that harass students based on their race, color or national origin, to persist on campus. Religion and sexual orientation are not included in the groups protected under the federal law,12 although some states and cities extend this protection to religion, sexual orientation, gender and/or gender identity. Victims of such an environment may be able to sue for injunctive relief, to force the university to take action or to receive monetary damages.13

    • Publicly articulate that the university is concerned with the safety of all its students and will take action against speech that is unlawful, such as true threats.
    • Clearly express that the university condemns hate speech.
    • Hold organizers of protests and rallies to equal standards when booking event space, reserving security detail, compiling appropriate administrative paperwork, etc.
    • Cleary explain that ending unauthorized rallies is not a violation of the First Amendment.


    According to the FBI’s 2006 Hate Crimes Statistics, 32.1 percent of all hate crime offenses were acts of destruction, damage and vandalism, 27.6 percent were intimidation, 19.1 percent were simple assault and 13 percent were aggravated assault.14  Hate-related vandalism, graffiti, intimidation and harassment demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the target and the target’s community.  The damage done by hate crimes and incidents cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or financial damages. Hate crimes and bias incidents may effectively intimidate other members of the target’s community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. 

    The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act requires higher education institutions to give timely warnings of crimes that represent a threat to the safety of students or employees, and to make public their campus security policies. It also requires that data on all crimes, including hate crimes, are collected, reported and disseminated to the campus community and are submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. The act is intended to provide students and their families, as higher education consumers, with accurate, complete and timely information about safety on campus so that they can make informed decisions.15

    • Establish legally valid, clear and unambiguous policies regarding student, faculty and staff conduct. Such policies should be widely published in student and staff handbooks and other appropriate places, making it clear that vandalism, racist graffiti, intimidation and harassment have no place on campus and will not be tolerated, and that violators will be punished and prosecuted as appropriate.  Enforce such policies strictly and promptly.  Following appropriate norms of due process, violators must be punished and their actions must be publicly denounced.
    • Ensure the safety of the victim. If the crime is an act of bias, ensure the safety of the targeted identity group. 
    • Promptly remove bias-related graffiti after the police have conducted their investigation. Such graffiti should be considered a special human relations concern, distinct from standard maintenance procedures and preset maintenance schedules.
    • Posters containing hateful or discriminatory messages should be considered unauthorized for display on university-controlled spaces and should be promptly removed by university officials.
    • In accordance with the Clery Act, universities must report crime data to the U.S. Department of Education. Information on compliance with the Clery Act can be found in the U.S. Department of Education’s manual, The Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting.


    Most students today consider e-mailing, text messaging, chatting and blogging a vital means of self-expression and a central part of their social lives. There are increasing reports, however, that some young adults are using the Internet and cell phone technology to bully and harass others (often referred to as “cyberbullying,” which can be defined as the willful and repeated harm inflicted through electronic media).  Further, hate groups and extremist groups have recognized the Internet’s power and rushed to use it to rally their supporters, preach to the unconverted, and intimidate those whom they perceive as their enemies.

    Victims of cyberbullying and/or hate on the Internet are subject to unique distress due to the pervasive and invasive nature of modern communications technology: messages can be circulated far and wide in an instant and are usually irrevocable. Further there is no refuge from Internet hate and victimization can be relentless. The First Amendment protects the free speech rights of student Internet users.  Public universities may have more authority to restrict postings that violate university rules if the posting is created as part of a

    university-sponsored activity or if a student used campus resources to create it, such as the campus computer system.  Universities may consider adopting computer use policies for students who use the school computer systems.  The policy could set out guidelines detailing the terms and conditions of Internet use, including definitions of acceptable online behavior and access privileges.  It is crucial to work with your counsel on these issues to ensure any policy is effective and constitutional.

    Private universities may have more leeway to restrict speech on the university computer system than would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment in a public school.  Some states have statutes, however, that deem private universities to be public for purposes of student First Amendment protection.16

    If applicable, universities may remind students that the University’s Internet service is provided under the terms and conditions of the service provider, which may have acceptable-use policies of its own. As private entities, providers are not restricted by the First Amendment, and most Web sites and providers have “Terms of Use” policies that prohibit offensive speech and restrict users from harassing others.

    Criminal Liability

    Students should be reminded that they may be held criminally accountable for speech on the Internet.  Following are examples where university students were convicted of a crime for their behavior on the Internet:

    United States v. Machado
    In September 1996, a 21-year-old expelled college student who lived in Southern California sent a threatening e-mail message to 60 Asian students at the University of California Irvine (UC Irvine). The message expressed a hatred for Asians and stated that UC Irvine would be a much more popular school without Asian students. The message further blamed Asians for all crimes that occurred on campus, and concluded with a clear threat to hunt down and kill all Asians on campus if they did not leave the university.
      “I personally will make it my life career [sic] to
      find and kill everyone one [sic] of you personally.
      OK?????? That’s how determined I am….”
      The message was signed “Asian Hater.”
    The sender did not sign his name to the message, and the message was sent from an e-mail account that hid his identity. Ultimately, however, in voluntary interviews with UC Irvine police, Richard Machado admitted that he sent the threatening message. He was charged with violating the federal civil rights law, which prohibits (among other things) interference by force or threat of force based on race or national origin with a person’s attendance at a public university. Machado’s first trial ended in a hung jury. A second trial in 1998 resulted in Machado’s conviction, and he was sentenced to one year in prison.

    United States v. Kingman Quon
    A college student, Kingman Quon, sent e-mail messages to 42 Latino/a faculty members at California State University at Los Angeles, 25 Latino/a students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and numerous other Latino/a persons employed at various institutions and businesses across the nation. Quon’s racially derogatory messages discussed his hatred of Latinos/as, accused them of being “too stupid” to have been accepted at the university or have obtained employment without the help of affirmative action programs, and concluded that he intended to “come down and kill” them.

    In 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice charged Quon with interfering with the students’ federal rights in violation of federal civil rights laws. Quon pleaded guilty and received a two-year prison sentence.

    State of Maine v. Belanger.
    In 1997, Casey Belanger was a 19-year-old freshman student at the University of Maine at Orono. He posted his resume, which included a statement that he “dislike[d] fags,” on the university’s computer network. In response, another student posted a message attacking Belanger’s resume and asking who Belanger thought he was. This subsequent message was sent to student groups organized on the university’s Internet system for Religion, Gay/Lesbian/ Bisexual, Politics, and Debate.

    Later that same day, Belanger posted a message to all of these groups, which stated [expletives deleted]:

      I hope that you die screaming in hell...
      you’d [sic] better watch your... back you little...
      I’m [sic] gonna shoot you in the back of the... head...
      die screaming [name of student], burn in eternal... hell
      I hate gay/lesbian/bisexuals, so... what….
    The State Attorney General brought an action against Belanger under the Maine Civil Hate Crime Act seeking an injunction to require Belanger to cease from threatening any person because of the person’s sexual orientation, race, color, religion, ancestry, sex, national origin or physical or mental disability. The Court issued a permanent injunction against Belanger.

    Suggested Responses for Victims of Hate on the Internet or Cyberbullying
    1. As an initial step, students could block the person sending the offensive messages using the block options that come in many e-mail and instant messaging programs. 
    2. Students and/or universities may inform their Internet Service Provider (ISP), e-mail service provider or cell phone/pager service provider about harassing messages or content.  Because it is not feasible for providers to review all postings or enforce policies such as age limits, it is critical that users report violations. 
    3. Users should contact the appropriate campus officials, and if necessary, their local police department about repeated harassment or threats. 
    • Condemn cyberbullying in all forms on campus.
    • Include clear and well-communicated policies on cyberbullying as part of the university’s code of conduct and technology-related “acceptable use” policies. 
    • Educate students, faculty and staff about cyberbullying policies, and how to recognize and respond to cyberbullying and cyberthreats.
    • Include students in the planning and implementation of university-wide programs to counter cyberbullying.
    • Develop a mechanism for students to report incidents of cyberbullying they have experienced or observed.


    When establishing collaborative relationships with universities abroad, special awareness must be taken with programs in countries where there are potential restrictions on the activities of program participants based on such characteristics as religion, gender and sexual orientation.   Such a relationship, if not precisely defined to protect students, faculty and staff, may run afoul of a number of the university’s legal obligations, as well as cause the university to fail in its commitment to ensuring that diversity is an integral element of the educational experience.

    Regarding legal obligations, public universities must adhere to state and federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on a number of characteristics, including religion, sex, national origin and ancestry.17 

    Moreover, any program operated by a United States university must comply with state anti-discrimination laws so that any qualified student, faculty or staff member will have equal access to participate in any university program.18

    These obligations may be triggered even if the discrimination occurs because a foreign government fails to issue visas to students, faculty members or staff on the basis of any of the aforementioned characteristics. 

    Short of any legal requirement that may dictate your actions, a university may find itself in a unique position to further its reputation as a school that supports diversity and gender equality.  By insisting that any arrangement must meet the highest values of an open and welcoming university, it will send a strong message to its faculty, its students and the wider higher education community that bigotry and bias are not acceptable.

    • Check your state and federal employment discrimination laws to ensure that these laws will be upheld in the international university setting.
    • Effectively communicate your university’s diversity policy and code of conduct to the administration of the international university. 

    1Avins v. Rutgers, 385 F.2d 151, 153 (3rd Cir., 1967).

    2Keyishian v. Board of Regents of University of State of N Y. 385 U.S. 589 (1967).

    3Keyishian v. Board of Regents of University of State of NY. 385 U.S. 589 (1967).

    4Stated by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Sweezy v. New Hampshire (354 U.S. 234 1957) and Justice Lewis Powell in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (438 U.S. 265 1978).

    5American Association of University Professors, 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (

    6The American Council of Trustees and Alumni by Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut, Politics in the Classroom: A Survey of Students at the Top 50 Colleges and Universities. November 2004. P. 6, 12.

    7Kelly-Woessner and Matthew C. Woessner, My Professor is a Partisan Hack: How Perceptions of a Professor’s Political Views Affect Student Course Evaluations. PS: Political Science &Politics. July 2006. P. 499.

    8American Council on Education. Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities, (

    9See Saunders, 417 F.2d at 1130; cf. Chaplinsky v. United States, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942) (holding that “fighting words” are not protected speech under the First Amendment).

    10See Saunders, 417 F.2d at 1130; see also Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (forbidding the state to regulate speech that advocates the use of violence or lawlessness, unless such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite such action).

    11Monteiro v. Temple Union High Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d at 1033.

    12Monteiro, 158 F.3d at 1033.

    1342 U.S.C. ¤ 2000d-7; Young v. Pierce, 544 F. Supp. 1010, 1015 (E.D. Tex. 1982).

    15U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, The Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting, Washington, D.C., 2005.

    16For example, California’s “Leonard Law” prohibits secular private secondary schools from violating students’ First Amendment Rights.  Cal. Educ. Code § 48950 (Deering 2000).  However, this statute does not apply to any private secondary school that is controlled by a religious organization.

    17California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900, et seq. and  Title VII
    of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended in 1991 to include the American employees of U.S. companies abroad)

    1842 USC 1981, 42 USC 2000d, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51) or California Education Code
    sections 200 et seq., 66252 and 66030.

    Next: Taking Action Against Hate

    Campus Presidents/ Senior Administrators Speak Out to Oppose Hate on Campus
    Columbia University

    This issue is not in the end about free speech alone. Of course we support free speech. At Columbia we have an impressive capacity to sustain a community that incorporates sharp disagreements... But we are not obliged to honor every utterance. I see no evidence that this article is seeking truth. It contains egregious factual errors. It relies on the crudest and most inflammatory images and stereotypes. .... In short, it is unworthy of the discourse we expect in this community.

    The crucial question remains where we go from here. I believe that a heightened dialogue has already begun among us in the places that it counts most -- in the residence halls and classrooms and walkways of campus. ... In the weeks ahead I will continue to reach out to students from every background as well as to academic, religious, and community leaders to advance our common agenda for constructive relations among the multiple constituencies here on campus.

    President George Rupp to the entire Columbia community regarding an anti-Semitic article in The Spectator, the student newspaper.

    Home | Search | About ADL | Contact ADL | Privacy Policy

    2013 Anti-Defamation League