Supreme Court case could have effect on harassment codes

One year ago, five youths watched Robert Viktora as he burned a cross on the front lawn of the only black family in a St. Paul, Minn. neighborhood. Now, the University and its peers are watching Viktora and the case he is bringing to the Supreme Court. And while the connection is still unfolding, some lawyers say the cross-burning case now before the Court could have several implications for university speech codes. The case, R.A.V. v. St. Paul, revolves around the charge that Viktora violated a St. Paul "hate-crime" city ordinance that prohibits placing any object on public or private land that is likely to cause "anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." But Deborah Gilman, legal counsel for Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, said yesterday that the ordinance is in violation of the First Amendment. She added that the statute is similar to racial harrassment and speech policies which several colleges have begun to implement in an effort to protect minorities on campus. Viktora's lawyer Mark Anfinson said that if the Supreme Court rules the St. Paul statute unconstitutional, public colleges all across the nation may have to revamp their harassment policies. At the University, President Sheldon Hackney is currently considering implementing a racial harrassment policy that has been the source of heated debate in the University Council and campus for over a year. Law School Professor Seth Kreimer said that the impact of this case would be blunted since the University is a private institution and not legally required to match the Supreme Court's standards. But MCLU legal counsel Gilman said yesterday that although the University is private, just the weight of the Supreme Court's decision may influence private universities to rethink their policies. And there is precedent for the University to reconsider its code when a court ruling of this kind had been handed down. The current revisions being considered, for example, were largely spurred by a Michigan federal court ruling two years ago, which stated that the University of Michigan's harrassment policy -- which is almost identical to the University's current code -- was unconstitutional. "Michigan's policy was narrower and had a more limited scope than the St. Paul ordinance," Anfinson said. "But, they are of the same genus." Some University professors said yesterday that they are happy that the court is considering the case, since it will give the University direction regardless of its legal ramifications. "I'm glad that the case reached the Supreme Court," said City Planning Professor Anthony Tomazinis, who has been one of the more vocal free-speech advocates during the campus debate on the policy. "We need some guidance in deciding the limits of free speech and constraints." Finance Professor Morris Mendelson agreed, saying he was disgruntled with the current racial harassment code. "The policy is telling people there are things you can't say," he said yesterday. "We're a university. We are supposed to have free speech. That's how learning occurs." Supreme Court spokesperson Brenda Williams said yesterday that the case was not on the calendar to be heard in either October or November. But Anfinson said that he expected the case to be heard in early December and the decision to be announced between March and June. "In my opinion this [restricting speech] is one of the most dominant opinions in several years at universities," Anfinson said yesterday. "It is promoted by traditionally liberal groups, who one usually looks to supporting their freedoms."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.