Wednesday, September 27, 2017

On University Campus Confederate Flags Were Found with Cotton

Photo by Michael T. Barry from USA Today

Summary:
At a school in Washington D.C., a college student, Michael T. Barry, found multiple confederate flags posted on bulletin boards around campus with cotton attached to it. The school claims that the suspect is a white 40-year old man. The same night the posters were discovered, a AU history and international relations professor, Ibra X. Kendi, held a presentation regarding the campus' new antiracism research center. Barry claims that this incident is real proof that racism still exists. 

Questions:
1. If the university presses charges on the suspect, is the suspect able to use his "right to freedom of speech" against the charges? Why?
2. Would the mentioned antiracism research center be able to prevent incidents like this one?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The suspect would not be able to use "right to free speech" as a protection against his action. Since the photo not only contains the Confederate flag but also contains cotton, which is a symbol for slavery, and racial slogans such as "Huzzah for Dixie" and "I wish I was in the land of cotton," it suggest the man's wish to make slavery constitutional again. Although the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, making racial discriminations or bias against a specific group violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that everyone is equal. Therefore, the suspect would not be protected under the Constitution. Since the antiracism research center advocates for racial equality, it is likely that it will reduce incidents like this one, as more people will be exposed to the mindset of that everyone should be equal.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Chloe that he shouldn't be able to use Free Speech as a defense for what he did, and instead of the 14th amendment, I think the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a better way to criminalize this act. In addition, Chaplinsky v New Hampshire determined that “fighing words” are not protected under the first amendment and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul extended the definition of fighting words to a symbol that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender” (Oyez), which in my opinion these posters do. I find it interesting that this is the second anti-black incident at American University (in May black students found “lynched” bananas that were hung by strings on their doors), which attempts to appear like they care about student safety and diversity (though when looking at their majors they are missing African American studies which is offered at many well known schools yet they have Asian studies) yet incidents of racism keep occuring.