Harvard Law recently passed hate speech measures that threaten to limit the liberty of its students, professors and administrators. Albeit motivated by the good intention to promote a better working and educational environment, the Law School has set a dangerous precedent for the abridgement of speech, without addressing the causes of hatred.

According to the Guidelines Concerning Harassment Through Discriminatory Conduct. "It is forbidden discrimination for any member of the Law School community, on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, or national origin, to subject any other member of the Law School community to any...physical contact or interference with freedom of movement that has the purpose or effect of...creating an intimidating, demeaning, degrading, hostile, or otherwise seriously offensive working or educational environment at Harvard Law School."

So what happens of Bob insults Jim and attempts to walk past him, and then Jim blocks bob and demands an apology from him? For how long must Bob's passage be blocked before he could rightly claim that Jim interfered with his "freedom of movement" in such a way that it "had the effect of creating an intimidating environment?" This rule is so broad and so vague that, at best it will be inconsistently applied, and at worst it cold be manipulated to persecute students.

The guidelines also state that "It is...forbidden discrimination for any member of the Law School community, on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age or national origin, to engage in any...speech...that would be viewed by a reasonable person as physically intimidating under the circumstances and that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or academic performance or of creating an intimidating, demeaning, degrading, hostile, or otherwise seriously offensive working or educational environment at Harvard Law School."

The third commentary to the guideline adds that "though appropriately broad on a university campus, the right of free expression does not encompass a right to engage in abusive or intimidating conduct..."

Will flying the PLO flag from a window be considered "intimidating" conduct to Israeli students" Will a prochoice rally that makes use of hangers dripping in red paint be intimidating to pro-lifers? How will the line be drawn between what is personally or politically offensive and what is objectively intimidating and discriminatory?

The draft guidelines surrounding "Harassment by Personal Vilification," are perhaps easier to apply, but are philosophically very troubling when analyzed closely. These guidelines prohibit any speech that has all of the following four properties:

1. "Is intended to insult or stigmatize another...on the basis of their race, color, religion, gender, sexual, orientation, disability, age or national origin."

2. "Makes use of words or non-verbal symbols that are commonly understood to convey direct, visceral hatred or contempt for human beings on the basis of their race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age or national origin."

3. "Has the...effect of creating a seriously intimidating, hostile, demeaning, degrading or otherwise egregiously offensive working or educational environment..."

4. Is not "designed or intended to contribute to legal or public education, academic inquiry, or reasoned debate on issues of public concern."

Why does the first property of forbidden speech include only those insults that are based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability age or national origin? What about insults that are based on a student's physical appearance, academic performance, wealth or lack thereof, intelligence, social ineptitude, etc." Why should these kinds of insults not also be prohibited, if the Law School's goals is to promote a less intimidating, demeaning, degrading, hostile and seriously offensive environment? Why not also prohibit all nasty or even mildly insulting language? What about redness and unfriendliness?

The second property of forbidden speech at the Law School is that it is "commonly understood" to convey a hatred for human beings on the basis of their race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age or national origin. But what is "commonly understood?" Will a list be drawn up of all the words, name-calling and epithets that this category includes, so that the speech that is deemed to posses this second property will be consistently determined and clear to all students (including foreign students who may not know what is "commonly understood" to be hateful)?

Even if the ambiguities that attend this second property are cleared up, the application of this guideline will still lead those who would have used their preferred but now prohibited epithets to employ disguised or new versions of their hateful words. This obvious consequence is a major flaw in the Law School's attempt to legislate sensitivity: it tries to address selected symptoms of racism at the expense of personal liberties, as if doing so would end the racism that causes those symptoms.

The third property of prohibited speech is that it has the effect of creating an educational environment that is seriously intimidating, hostile or degrading (among other possibilities). But what objective standards can determine whether some speech creates one of these kinds of educational environments? The only way to discover if some speech intimidates somebody is by asking that person whether he/she finds the speech intimidating. And the "reasonable person" test will not diminish the subjectivity of intimidation. A reasonable person who is large and muscular probably won't be intimidated as easily as reasonable person who is short and fragile. Ultimately, a rule that punishes students for being perceived as intimidating by one of their classmates can only spell disaster for student relations and for a system that aims to protect student rights.