Silverglate Free Speech Summary
Summary of “Bullying Free Speech” In the article titled “Bullying Free Speech” (Forbes Magazine 1/6/11), Harvey Silverglate concludes that to keep a fair balance between academic freedom and protection against harassment is to vote “no” on the Tyler Clementi Act. “The Tyler Clementi Higher education Anti-Harrassment Act” authorized by Senator Lautenberg and Representative Rush Holt, was proposed to expand anti harassment laws. The bill was introduced after the suicide of freshman student, Tyler Clementi's private sexual encounter was broadcasted online. Silverglate remarks that the proposed bill is redundant because the students who harassed Tyler Clementi were facing punishment under New Jersey law that included invasion of privacy for broadcasting Clementi's sexual encounter online. He adds that Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act already enforces severe punishment against harassment in all federally funded colleges. Silverglate provides the precise definition of harassment given by the Supreme court in the case Davis vs Monroe County Board of Education. Harassment defined after this case created a balance between unpleasant speech and harassing verbal behavior. The definition of harassment introduced in the Clementi Act states any verbal or nonverbal act that is “sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive as to limit a student's ability to participate.” The definition proposed by legislation fails to draw a clear distinction between harassment that is severe enough to be punishable and bullying that does not warrant such measures. Silvergate notes that limiting free speech would fall to the responsibility of college administrators who will undoubtedly over censor due to the broad harassment regulations the proposed bill contains. He supports this point by adding that the Individual Rights Foundation, FIRE already claims harassment as “the most abused tool to limit free speech.” Representative Rush Holt argues the bill is