America has always prided itself on being a nation that offers freedoms to its citizens that are not as easily found throughout the rest of the world. The freedoms of speech, assembly, press, religion and petition are highly valued by the American people.

But what happens when a person uses their freedoms to infringe upon the rights of others? What happens when free speech becomes hate speech?

On Nov. 5, 2008, the N.C. State community was forced to address this very question when a group of four students spray-painted discriminatory comments regarding then President-elect Barack Obama in the Free Expression Tunnel.

For weeks on end, members of the community engaged in dialogue centering around the incident itself and what punishments should be rendered for the involved students. A couple of weeks after the incident, the perpetrators submitted an anonymous written apology.

Despite this, many members of the community voiced their concerns and desires for the students to be expelled. University officials, however, said that disciplinary action would not be revealed as it would be a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

For this reason, and many others the UNC Board of Governors sought to create a new University-wide policy to address such occurrences on UNC campuses. The Board of Governors passed a resolution last month that recognizes the need to address student behaviors that are negative towards other students.

Although the resolution contains no disciplinary guidelines, it outlines language that will soon be included in all UNC system schools’ student conduct codes.

Director of Student Conduct Paul Cousins said this resolution is significant for the BOG because the body “usually doesn’t micromanage conduct issues within university campuses.”

“The general administration thinks this issue is a big enough deal that it is calling for centralized and coordinated language within all universities’ student conduct codes,” Cousins said. “The goal is to take a more unified approach within the system to establish standard expectations for student behavior.”

The policy outlines specific behaviors that could lead to disciplinary action by schools, although it leaves the decision for what actions should be taken to be determined by state and national laws and school policy.

According to the policy, no student shall “threaten, coerce, harass or intimidate another person or identifiable group of persons in a manner that is unlawful.” It also states that these actions must occur “on University premises or at University-sponsored activities.”

The courts, according to Cousins, have struck down universities that have attempted to establish civility or speech codes in the past. Cousins also noted that the policy does not include the term “hate crimes” but instead “focuses specifically on behaviors.” Hate crimes are defined as criminal offenses, while discriminatory behavior may or may not be unlawful.

Justine Hollingshead, Director of the GLBT Center, said this policy is important to the GLBT Center because it includes sexual orientation as a source of discrimination. “Many resolutions that address behavior often do not include the GLBT community, but this policy gives protection to our students,” Hollingshead said.

Hollingshead also recognized that this issue goes back to where the line is drawn between free speech and infringement on the rights of others.

“I think when one student’s behavior starts to interfere with another student’s academic pursuit, or a student is feeling unsafe or unwelcome, that is when a conversation needs to be started,” Hollingshead said. “It may not be a hate crime, but the student causing the discrimination needs to be shown that what they are saying impacts other people.”

Students in the GLBT community are subjected to discrimination on the University campus, according to Hollingshead. “Sexual orientation and gender identity are the last frontier where it’s still considered OK to discriminate,” Hollingshead said. “Hopefully this type of policy, if it is put into action, will at least give support to the community.”

Jo-Ann Robinson, Vice Provost for Diversity, said the University has an obligation to uphold free speech in accordance with the North Carolina Constitution. At the same time, she said students have a responsibility to maintain a learning environment.

“We respond differently to different situations and look at everyone on an individual basis,” Robinson said. “There is not one single entity that responds to these issues on campus – the Chancellor, Provost, faculty, staff and students all respond together.”

Robinson said her office is working on the 2010 Institutional Climate Survey, which will give students a chance to share how they feel about campus culture.

“It helps us decide if there are specific areas we need to focus our attention,” Robinson said.

In addition, Robinson said she looks forward to the arrival of Chancellor Woodson to provide additional leadership in addressing issues regarding diversity and discrimination. Just because a student says something mean or offensive does not necessarily mean it is illegal, according to Cousins.

“The University should look at this as an opportunity to move forward with discussions and arguments in a civil manner,” Cousins said. “It will take a while for our community to understand where lines should be drawn. It is a continuous educational process.”