Can a university’s policy on hazing and harassment prohibit conduct that “frightens, demeans, degrades or disgraces any person”?

The University of the Virgin Islands disciplined student Stephen McCauley after finding him guilty of violating its policy on hazing and harassment. The charges were based mainly on an allegedly harassing phone call McCauley made to another student as well as an allegedly harassing remark he made to the other student at a bar.

A university policy defined “hazing-harassment” as “any act which causes or is likely to cause serious physical or mental harm or which tends to injure or actually injure, frightens, demeans, degrades or disgraces any person.”

McCauley sued the school, saying it violated his First Amendment rights by bringing charges against him based on his conduct.

With respect to the school’s hazing/harassment policy, the court agreed.

Why? Because the policy was too broad. The school can ban speech that’s likely to cause a substantial disruption, the court said. But its hazing/harassment policy was so broad that it encompassed some speech that can’t reasonably be viewed as likely to create a threat of substantial disruption.

The hazing/harassment policy was unconstitutionally overbroad, the court said.

Cite: McCauley v. Univ. of the Virgin Islands.

Do you agree that the school’s policy was too broad? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Tags: First Amendment, free speech, harassment policies, hazing, University of the Virgin Islands