Freedom – A misconception

On October 18, 1990, Doug Hann, a Caucasian student at Brown University, celebrated his 21st birthday, which should have been his initiation to adulthood. Instead, he regressed to childish behavior and spent the evening of his birthday, after consuming a good amount of alcohol, behaving in a boisterous and uncouth manner. He shouted out foul, offensive and derogatory words, initially at no one in particular and then at students from other races who confronted him in the college premises. In due course, for what was termed as “flagrant disrespect for the well-being of others and for being unreasonably disruptive of the University community,” Doug Hann was expelled from the University, and thereby, his name was introduced to the history books. This was the first expulsion from Brown University and also the first for violation of the new “hate speech” codes enacted across the country over the past few years. 

Though the departure of this student was openly welcomed by most of his peers, some did question its basis. They felt the decision of the University was against an important tenet of freedom and against the law of the land that is committed to Freedom of Speech. Additionally, there was criticism of the manner in which the President of the University, Vartan Gregorian, was explaining this expulsion. In his letters, distributed widely, the President claimed that the student was being expelled for his abusive actions and not just his words. However, the description of the student’s behavior in the school’s newspaper did not indicate any such action on the part of the student. In fact, it was stated that he did not do anything physical, merely shouted out his venom. Punishing someone for things said, as opposed to things done, would be a contradiction of the First Amendment. The event re-opened the debate on the extent to which Freedom of Speech can be exercised before individuals may face repercussions based on new “hate speech” codes enacted to promote tolerance.

Freedom of Speech is an essential and integral part of democracy. The United States Constitution protects this freedom: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” - First Amendment – (Religion and Expression)

Restriction of freedom is a paradox. Freedom means “the condition of being free of restraints.” Nevertheless, there are certain limits that need to be imposed on individual freedom, which is the key to retaining freedom for all. This is, therefore, the basis of all laws that govern human behavior in a “free” country. Interpretation of freedom laws, as enjoined in the Constitution, is the purview of the courts. However, people have their own understanding of freedom that they bring into play every day of their lives. The matter, thus, rests at reconciling an individual’s version with that of the courts. The question is whether Doug Hann crossed the legal line or the ethical one when he exercised his freedom of expression. In either case, it is often forgotten, or ignored, that law and ethics are about the rules of living and rules imply restriction. So, we must ask whether we ever experience genuine freedom.

True freedom is about being liberated from rigid ideas and making informed choices. As we live our lives and have various experiences, we start to have a better understanding of people as individuals, beyond their outer appearance. Doug Hann was only 21 years old when he was expelled from the University. The expulsion has probably affected his entire future adversely. To that extent, whether this was an early lesson in life for him or a severe punishment before he had even experienced life can be debated. Either way, Doug Hann must be forgiven for having the same misconception as the rest of us that living in a free country permits us to live without morals.