hate speech | Campus Safe Words

TERM: hate speech
RISK LEVEL: extreme

Definition

“Hate speech” refers to speech, expression, or conduct that demeans, threatens, or targets individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or nationality. In higher education, the term is often used in student conduct codes, DEI training, bias response systems, and campus safety messaging.

Why It’s Risky

“Hate speech” is not a legally defined or prohibited category under U.S. federal law; it is broadly protected by the First Amendment unless it meets the legal threshold for harassment, incitement, or true threats. In conservative-led states, laws such as Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act and Tennessee’s Campus Free Speech Protection Act prohibit public universities from policing speech based on content or viewpoint. The use of “hate speech” in institutional policies, training materials, or disciplinary systems can trigger legal challenges, audits, or accusations of unconstitutional censorship. Risk increases when the term is used without precise definitions or appears to be applied selectively to silence politically disfavored opinions.

Common Critiques

Critics argue that “hate speech” is a subjective and ideologically loaded term used to suppress dissenting or unpopular views. In conservative policy circles, it is often seen as a tool for enforcing progressive orthodoxy on campus, particularly when applied through bias reporting systems or required training. Lawmakers have expressed concern that speech labeled as hateful may include constitutionally protected religious or political beliefs—particularly on issues such as immigration, marriage, or gender identity. Institutions that include “hate speech” in policies or programming may be accused of violating viewpoint neutrality, stifling academic freedom, or promoting compelled speech. In legislative testimony and litigation, “hate speech” language has been cited as justification for restricting public funding, revoking policies, or dissolving DEI offices.

Suggested Substitutes

Unlawful harassment or threats (in HR and Title IX/VI/VII policies)
Conduct that violates institutional policy (in student codes of conduct)
Speech not protected under applicable law (in legal disclaimers)
Behavior disrupting educational activity (in classroom or event guidelines)
Bias-related incidents (in voluntary, non-punitive reporting systems)

These alternatives ground institutional responses in legal standards rather than subjective judgment.

When It May Still Be Appropriate

“Hate speech” may be used in academic contexts—such as political science, communications, or legal studies—where it is analyzed critically and not embedded in enforceable policy. It may also appear in public discourse or media references quoted with attribution. In all operational documents, employee training, or student policies, use legally grounded alternatives to avoid litigation and legislative scrutiny.

NOTES: Do not include “hate speech” in conduct policies unless carefully defined and tied to specific legal categories. Focus institutional language on unlawful conduct, disruption, or targeted threats—not controversial or offensive ideas. Use neutral frameworks that emphasize academic freedom and procedural fairness in politically sensitive environments.