Freedom of Speech vs. Workplace Harassment

E-mail debates of newsworthy topics.
Oct. 1 1997 3:30 AM

Freedom of Speech vs. Workplace Harassment


Dear Eugene:


I'm glad we agree that "one-on-one insults" on the job, once they permeate the work environment, can be restricted. Why? Because, as you and I both know, the First Amendment is not absolute, and the 14th explicitly empowers the government to prevent discrimination. In short ... constitutional crash. (Which is why, by the way, I'd have to vote "yes" on SLATE's ill-phrased question here.)

Our only disagreement is on how to resolve the conflict between these two parts of the Constitution. You would protect "political statements" on the job, while I don't believe this kind of line-drawing makes any sense.

It's virtually impossible to tell the difference between political speech and one-on-one slurs. Imagine things get tough at UCLA, and you decide to take a job as a human resources manager at Warner Bros. Your supervisor, a woman, makes daily pronouncements that "men aren't capable of doing this job" (under your definition, a political statement about gender-based ability). Your co-workers start making similar comments, and cover the office with anti-male "bulletins, cartoons, and other written material," undermining your confidence and effectiveness. Your female counterparts sail through their days without a problem. Shouldn't you have legal recourse? Should it matter that no one directed a personal, one-on-one insult at you, such as: "Eugene, as a man, you're not capable of doing this job"?

The distinction between these two types of statements hardly strikes me as "elementary." And it's not particularly principled, either, as the ACLU recognizes in its current policy on this topic. Where do we head as a society if First Amendment protections turn on such a trivial difference in a speaker's turn of phrase?

And the distinction has no basis in constitutional law. The First Amendment doesn't protect any kind of speech--political or otherwise--with no regard for the circumstances. Everyone knows you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Context matters with political statements as well. The Supreme Court has said over and over again that where a person listening to unwanted speech has no realistic way of avoiding it (where she's "captive"), her right to privacy trumps the speaker's right to express himself. On this principle, the court has upheld restrictions on political ads displayed in public buses, where some riders have no realistic transportation alternative; and anti-choice slogans shouted outside abortion clinics, where patients can't leave due to medical circumstance.

Workers on the job are even more "captive." If a woman's being harmed by her supervisor's harassing statements, her only alternative is to walk away--and risk being fired for insubordination. The Constitution doesn't, and shouldn't, force her to make that choice.

And free speech rights are at their weakest on the job. Most workers can be fired for any reason, including saying the wrong thing. Should this principle evaporate when an employee starts calling his women colleagues "bitch" or "whore," and tells them to spend more time in the office kitchen, where he can "see their nipples better"? (I invite readers who visit your Web site to go out and read the full opinions from the cases you mention there, so they can see for themselves how much more hostility and hatred is taking place than suggested by your often selective and sanitized notes.)

In contrast, the equality rights of women and minorities are at their strongest at work. If equal opportunity doesn't apply in the job market, it's a dead letter. There, it seems to me, the balance between speech and equality tips in favor of the latter.

You raise an interesting point about the potential chilling effect of harassment law on speech. The law does not require employers to overreach, however, and I'm happy to tell you why in my next e-mail. More later ...




The Self-Made Man

The story of America’s most pliable, pernicious, irrepressible myth.

The GOP Senate Candidate in Iowa Doesn’t Want Voters to Know Just How Conservative She Really Is

Does Your Child Have “Sluggish Cognitive Tempo”? Or Is That Just a Disorder Made Up to Scare You?

Naomi Klein Is Wrong

Multinational corporations are doing more than governments to halt climate change.

The Strange History of Wives Gazing at Their Husbands in Political Ads


See Me

Transparent is the fall’s only great new show.


Lena Dunham, the Book

More shtick than honesty in Not That Kind of Girl.

Rehtaeh Parsons Was the Most Famous Victim in Canada. Now, Journalists Can’t Even Say Her Name.

Parents, Get Your Teenage Daughters the IUD

The XX Factor
Sept. 30 2014 12:34 PM Parents, Get Your Teenage Daughters the IUD
Sept. 30 2014 12:04 PM John Hodgman on Why He Wore a Blue Dress to Impersonate Ayn Rand
  News & Politics
Sept. 30 2014 1:38 PM Mad About Modi
 Why the controversial Indian prime minister drew 19,000 cheering fans to Madison Square Garden.

Building a Better Workplace
Sept. 30 2014 1:16 PM You Deserve a Pre-cation The smartest job perk you’ve never heard of.
Sept. 30 2014 1:48 PM Thrashed Florida State’s new president is underqualified and mistrusted. But here’s how he can turn it around.
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 30 2014 12:34 PM Parents, Get Your Teenage Daughters the IUD
  Slate Plus
Slate Picks
Sept. 30 2014 11:42 AM Listen to Our September Music Roundup Hot tracks from a cooler month, exclusively for Slate Plus members.
Brow Beat
Sept. 30 2014 12:42 PM How to Save Broken Mayonnaise
Future Tense
Sept. 30 2014 11:55 AM The Justice Department Is Cracking Down on Sales of Spyware Used in Stalking
  Health & Science
Bad Astronomy
Sept. 30 2014 7:30 AM What Lurks Beneath the Methane Lakes of Titan?
Sports Nut
Sept. 28 2014 8:30 PM NFL Players Die Young. Or Maybe They Live Long Lives. Why it’s so hard to pin down the effects of football on players’ lives.