University and college administrators nationwide are walking a fine line.

Like a piano wire tightrope, the line is barely visible and always moving. On one side is higher education’s goal of diversity and a potential mine field of racial tension.

On the other side is the First Amendment, which clearly states “congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech.”

The line also runs through NIU.

Bill, a freshman, hails from an ethnic white neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side. He didn’t approve of blacks and other minorities.

One night, feeling brave and perhaps a little intoxicated, Bill went to the middle of the King Memorial Commons.

There, he let everyone know what he thought of them, in no uncertain terms, spicing his informal sermon with epithets such as “nigger,” “Jew” and “faggot.”

Early the next week, Bill found himself facing charges of harassment, which could lead to expulsion.

This incident is not real, but it could have been. NIU is one of about 200 universities and colleges nationwide that have adopted codes punishing speech considered racist, sexist or derogatory toward ethnic or religious groups.

NIU’s Student Judicial Code prohibits “acting or communicating in a manner which intentionally harasses … any person on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or handicap.”

NIU Legal Counsel George Shur said the code is seen as a last resort in a wider effort to promote diversity and tolerance.

“If you’ve grown up with hate all your life, we can’t necessarily change it in four years,” Shur said. “What we can do is make this a pretty uncomfortable place to practice those prejudices.”

Critics say the codes can be abused by enforcing a set of “politically correct” values—a particular irony in an environment long associated with the free exchange of ideas.

Shur said the code is not meant to squelch expression of opinion either in the classroom or in public places like the commons’ “free speech area.”

“We have heard all kinds of speech in the commons. I’ve seen blacks say horrible things about whites. I’ve see whites accusing blacks of racism,” Shur said.

Although free speech is not absolute—prohibiting “fighting words” and libel—the courts have ruled that some codes have gone too far.

A code at the University of Michigan was struck down two years ago for punishing protected speech.

Shur said the Michigan code was “fatally defective” because it was too vague and came with a handbook detailing a wide variety of possible violations, including classroom discussion.

“Our policy is far more defensible,” he said. Violation of the code hinges on whether a person intended to harass one of the protected groups.

Although proving people’s intentions is no easy task, it can be inferred from their actions.

“If you go nose-to-nose with a black person and call them all kinds of names, your behavior shows you intended to harass them,” Shur said.

NIU has avoided problems with its code by applying it sparingly and carefully.

“One of the problems with other codes was that they called for automatic expulsion. We don’t do that here. Each case is considered on its own merits. I’m not aware of any instance here where someone was expelled or even suspended under the code,” he said.

Although it’s possible some schools use codes as marketing tools for minority recruitment, Shur said NIU’s came for a different reason.

It was written in response to an incident about five years ago in which a group of students published a flier called “Stump,” which contained poetry and articles derogatory to women and blacks.