Freedom of speech at Middlebury?

[MWolf]

@Publisher However, the next question would be, does a quasi-governmental status change the status of the shared spaces at these colleges from private space to public space? My uninformed opinion is that it does not, though it is uninformed, so if somebody with more knowledge corrects me, I will accept their correction.

However, even if it is public space, there is another issue, which I do not think has been made explicit, which is the issue of harassment. Use of racially derogatory terms by faculty, staff, and students is accepted as constituting harassment, which is prohibited on campus. So, does banning the use of racial epithets by students and faculty constitute a limitation on their freedom of speech? Evidently not, otherwise laws regarding harassment would have been overturned long ago. That would mean that use of racial epithets by students and faculty can be banned, as they would constitute harassment of members of the groups at which they were aimed.

Middlebury’s harassment policies prohibits conduct that is is, among other things, based on an individual’s sexual orientation. I’m sure that most people would agree that a faculty member using racial epithets against students, other faculty, or anybody else would be considered “harassment”. However, is the use of such epithets by a faculty member outside of the classroom covered by that? On one hand, it did not happen on campus, on the other hand, could people of the group against who the epithet was used consider that they would be treated fairly by this faculty member? This would therefore likely violate the part of Middlebury’s policy, since it undermines the educational performance of these individuals. Same with other students, or anybody else who works for Middlebury and has agreed with these policies.

Now, comes the big question: does inviting a speaker whose academic and political career has been, to a good extent, based on attacks on LGBTQ rights, constitute “harassment”? Or, more generally, does inviting a person, who is mostly known for one of their opinions, to speak, constitute an agreement with that opinion, or an agreement that this opinion is a valid point? If it does, and if that opinion is that members of a protected group are inferior, should have fewer rights, should be suppressed, etc, would the invitation of this speaker be considered “harassment”? Not on part of the speaker themselves, but on part of the people who invited the speaker.

Basically, if a certain conduct is prohibited on campus, wouldn’t requesting and likely paying somebody else to behave that way still be prohibited? Does inviting somebody to speak constitute a tacit agreement with the public opinions for which they are most known?

PS. I’m not posting these as rhetorical questions, BTW, even though I have my own opinions, but I am genuinely interesting in knowing other people’s opinions.

Middlebury’s Harassment policy (for reference):

Harassment

Harassment is defined as verbal, written, visual, or physical conduct based on or motivated by an individual’s actual or perceived sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, race, creed, color, place of birth, ancestry, ethnicity, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, or other characteristics as defined and protected by law in the location where a particular program is operating, that has the purpose or effect, from the point of view of a reasonable person, of objectively and substantially:

a. undermining and detracting from or interfering with an individual’s educational or work performance or access to Middlebury resources; or

b. creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational, work, or living environment.

Harassment may include repeated slurs, or taunts in the guise of jokes, or disparaging references to others, use of epithets, stereotypes, comments, gestures, threats, graffiti, display or circulation of written or visual materials, taunts on manner of speech, and negative reference to customs when such conduct is based on or motivated by one or more of the protected characteristics identified above, or other characteristics as defined and protected by applicable law.

In Middlebury’s Vermont programs, harassment may also include conduct of the type described above that is based on or motivated by a student’s family member’s actual or perceived race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, which has the type of purpose or effect described above.