Table of Contents
Speech Code of the Month: Texas A&M University

FIRE announces its Speech Code of the Month for May 2007: Texas A&M University.
Texas A&M鈥檚 policy on provides, in relevant part, that:
The rights of students are to be respected. These rights include respect for personal feelings, freedom from indignity of any type鈥. No officer or student, regardless of position or rank, shall violate those rights; no custom, tradition or rule in conflict will be allowed to prevail. (Emphasis added).
This policy literally prohibits hurting someone鈥檚 feelings at Texas A&M University.
Legally speaking, this policy is not worth the paper it鈥檚 written on. It is unconstitutionally overbroad, because it prohibits a tremendous amount of constitutionally protected speech. (Most deeply hurtful speech is also entirely constitutionally protected. For an example, take a look at the case of , in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Hustler Magazine鈥檚 right to publish a satirical advertisement suggesting that the Rev. Jerry Falwell鈥檚 first sexual experience was a drunken tryst in an outhouse with his own mother!) The policy is also unconstitutionally vague, because ordinary people will have to guess at its meaning. For example, might a classroom criticism of Creationism hurt the 鈥減ersonal feelings鈥 of an evangelical Christian student? Might a classroom criticism of affirmative action hurt the 鈥減ersonal feelings鈥 of a minority student? These are examples of both constitutionally protected and socially important speech, but students at Texas A&M must guess at whether they might face punishment for expressing those opinions, and are thus likely to refrain from speaking out for fear of engendering hurt feelings. Finally, this policy unconstitutionally conditions the permissibility of speech on subjective listener reaction鈥攊.e., on whether the speech hurts someone鈥檚 feelings, whether or not the person鈥檚 hurt feelings are reasonable. The only prerequisite for punishment seems to be whether or not someone felt hurt by someone else鈥檚 speech. Time and time again, courts have held that these types of regulations are unconstitutional.
Legal considerations aside, moreover, think of the effect that a policy like this has on campus discourse. Can you imagine the eggshells students must walk on to avoid violating this policy? Think how circumspect you would be in your daily interactions if you could be punished simply for hurting someone鈥檚 feelings. Is that an appropriate environment for a major state university that, in its own words, 鈥渄epends upon an uninhibited search for truth and its open expression鈥?
Texas A&M is the sixth largest university in the country in terms of enrollment, with over 46,000 enrolled students living under this repressive and unconstitutional policy. For this reason, it is our May 2007 Speech Code of the Month. If you believe that your college or university should be a Speech Code of the Month, please email speechcodes@thefire.org with a link to the policy and a brief description of why you think attention should be drawn to this code.
Recent Articles
FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Introducing Expression, 蜜桃直播's official new Substack
Free speech has a new home. 蜜桃直播 is now on Substack 鈥 delivering fearless commentary, analysis, and storytelling straight to your inbox. Join the conversation.

People want AI regulation 鈥 but they don鈥檛 trust the regulators
As AI reshapes the world around us, survey data shows rising support for its regulation. Are we protecting society, or baking censorship into our digital future?

No gay rights without free expression
蜜桃直播鈥檚 latest rankings show alarming support for censorship among LGBT students. But as Kirchick explains, there would be no LGBT rights without free speech.

University of Michigan has ended private surveillance contracts but the chill on free speech remains
After public outcry, UMich ditched its private spy firm 鈥 but the damage is done. Students may no longer be watched, but the chill on campus speech is alive and well.