The Spoken Word of a Democratic Nation

Kevin Mendoza

Prof. Arzola

English 1302

5 February 2016

The spoken word of a Democratic Nation

The rights of the unheard are always subjected to the public’s opinion when deemed unworthy. Charles Lawrence’s “On Racist Speech” is a meticulous work of literature that analyzes and interprets the meaning of the Constitution’s first amendment – the freedom of expression. Throughout his essay, Lawrence informs his audience about the countless victims that have been subjugated in colleges and universities by racist speech. While much of Lawrence’s arguments focuses on tolerating racist speech, by the same token, Lawrence contradicts himself by criticizing his intended audience, lawyers, for being negligent towards the controversial issue of racist speech. As noteworthy as his attempt was, the author did not fully grasp a clear and concise conclusion on the subject. As a result, despite his authoritative interpretation of the first amendment, Lawrence weakens his stance by conforming to both sides of the argument, while allowing his emotions to hinder his logic.

Lawrence’s skillful writing has been well noted throughout the selection, no doubt. However, because the author chose to approach his audience in a proficient manner, it could have perhaps, lost a portion of his audience’s understanding on the subject. For example, when the author averred that “Assaultive racist speech functions as a preemptive strike” … “as a proffered idea” (72, par. 6), the diction not commonly known in his statement could have distorted his idea. Although portions of his argument assume that the audience will be familiar with the words used, Lawrence demonstrates a cognizant state of mind of the entirety of his audience when he starts to define landmark cases such as the “Brown v. Board”, and using analogies, similes, metaphors, and personification to explain complex ideas that normally people without a law degree could not hope to understand.

As for Lawrence’s interpretation on the psychological aspect of racist speech, Lawrence allows his emotion to hinder his thought process as he inadvertently assumes the victims’ own personal emotions. Whether the assumption was based purely on personal emotions, or observations, the statement alluded bias when he concluded that “Racial epithets and harassment often cause deep emotional scarring and feelings of anxiety and fear that pervade every aspect of a victim’s life” (73, par. 12). The author’s assumption that the minorities will feel this way is due to his own personal feelings on the Brown case. Aside from the author’s own personal bias, the statement itself generalized each victim as being affected by racist speech; thus, the deductive logic behind his assertion is false. It is important to note that each victim handles a situation differently: some will choose to face their problems boldly, while others will try to release their emotions openly.

Nevertheless, as consistent as the argument may appear, it is not. Lawrence seems to be arguing with himself as he tries to go back and forth between viewpoints on what the appropriate action would be against racist speech. In his attempt to resolve the problem, the author implies to his intended audience, lawyers, that it is their responsibility to address the problem without invading people’s constitutional rights when he said “Good lawyers can create exceptions and narrow interpretations that limit the harm of hate speech without opening the floodgates of censorship” (74, par. 18). It will be oblivious not to note that the author indirectly stated that only good lawyers are capable of limiting the harm of hate speech without censoring it from the public. Although this may true in some cases, it is not true in all cases. His logic seems to be deriving from his years of experience as a lawyer rather than by logical reasoning.