Many colleges and universities across the country are dealing with racism in a manner which NIU will probably consider sooner or later.

Campuses are passing regulations which penalize students who insult others based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation.

*Students attending the University of Wisconsin can be put on trial for using racial, ethnic or sexual slurs.

*Stanford enforces an anti-harrassment policy which punishes students for saying things that insult others on the basis of race, national origin, sex or sexual preference.

*The University of Michigan’s anti-discrimination policy — which didn’t make it through court the first time — forbids offensive speech on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, creed, ancestory, age, marital status, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status.

*At Tufts University, free speech is permitted in public areas and campus publications, but not in classrooms (unless it is relevant to class discussion), dining halls, libraries and dormitories.

The purpose of these policies is to create an open, educational environment for all students. These policies also are fulfilling the need to do something about the racism problems on campuses. Supporters also claim colleges are institutions of higher learning — where students should know better anyway.

Charles R. Lawrence III, a professor at Stanford, defends the policies because they “do nothing more than impose sanctions against face to face insults”, which fall within the “fighting words” exception to First-Amendment protection.

Although the awareness of (not necessarily the number of) racist events on campuses is worrisome, censorship and special protection is not the best answer.

When has the suppression of expression ever created an educational environment?

Anybody who has not been a victim of racism or sexism cannot emphasize with those who have, but it is hard to believe that anyone could support these regulations.

Most people would agree racist speech is wrong, or unethical, but racist speech does not inhibit education — suppressed speech does.

These policies are a legislative answer, not an educational one. Anti-harassment policies protect people from real-world attitudes instead of preparing the victims and preventing the attitudes.

Universities already have laws to police violence or vandalism, but you cannot “police” maliciousness or ignorance out of someone.

The concept of “thought police” is frightening. Suppression breeds resentment, especially if that suppression is in an educational environment that is supposed to be a “market-place of ideas”.

Instead of a regulation, and instead of taking the “easy way out”, let’s see more rallies, debates, class discussion and the creation of cultural classes.

So when the racism, sexism, and ethnic problems at NIU come to a climax, and this university finally decides to face the problem, let’s hope the result is education and not censorship.