Out of sight, out of mind, right? If we clean up the hateful words that give us chills, we can forget about this one incident, pile it up with the rest and hope it does not topple over. Our campus was left scarred even after the paint on the victims’ cars was cleared.

In lieu of the horrifying hate crimes committed Nov. 1 on our campus, I think it is time Gustavus addressed the question: how much hate speech will we tolerate? The hate speech on our campus has included swastikas stamped out in the snow, students experiencing physical and verbal assault due to their sexuality and now the most recent act of hate committed on nine cars across our campus.

Hate speech can be defined as speech intended to degrade, intimidate or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, class, appearance or any other distinction which adds to our community’s diversity and uniqueness.

As the first amendment approaches its 217th birthday, one would expect that courts would have resolved most of the difficult questions about its scope and meaning. Two hundred years of experience have failed to yield a consistent and coherent theory of what the First Amendment means and how it is to be interpreted; moreover, the scope of our freedoms is difficult to define, especially free speech. The phrase “freedom of speech” seems never-ending and all-encompassing. Many Americans are ready to use this expression when a prejudiced, out-of-line or judgmental phrase exits their mouth. “I have the right to free speech” is a phrase which is taken advantage of all too often. What our country fails to recognize is that with this freedom comes great responsibility.

How could the men who drafted our U.S. Constitution ever imagine the need for a “no hate speech” clause? Is it right for every hateful event in our country to be protected by the First Amendment, which was drafted 217 years ago? Is it right to discriminate against anyone in our community? NO. Do words hurt just as much as actions? YES.

Because Gustavus is a private liberal arts college, we draft many of our own rules, policies, guidelines and punishment methods. Why does our campus not better protect our community from hate speech? We have a harassment policy in the Gustie Guide, but why do these horrible acts continue to occur?

Minnesota prohibits some forms of hate speech according to the Human Rights Act, but the Supreme Court continues to protect free speech. In the Supreme Court case R.A.V. vs. St. Paul, the hate speech was protected as free speech, even though our state has a bias-motivated crime ordinance. No matter what rules we set in place to protect ourselves from hateful words and actions, our national government has the power to rule in favor of the hate speech.

You might be surprised to learn that countries such as Australia, France, Germany, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden and many more have laws against hate speech. You would think that after years of reoccurring hate speech, our country, and also Gustavus, might take a stronger stance on hate speech, particularly because of the disturbance and uproar it causes.

The hateful messages on our campus’ cars involved words such as KKK, nigger, sand nigger, spics, gays and Jews. When one commits such a horrible act and deems it ‘free speech,’ he or she is not only disrespecting what generations before us have fought for and died for, but also pointing out the fact that we still have much to accomplish.

If the point was to tear us down and break us apart, that goal was not accomplished. These events have created important discourse, peace rallies and awareness across our campus and the entire St. Peter community. If anything, our community has grown together, strengthened and is ready to fight for equality, acceptance and peace.