In recent years, many of our colleges and universities have experienced an unfortunate resurgence in incidents that contain elements of a racial nature. On some campuses, these incidents have taken the form of subtle, indirect attacks by one individual or group against another. On others, the confrontations have been much more overt.

But regardless of the particular form that these incidents assume, most administrators feel compelled to take some form of corrective action.

Most administrators react rather vehemently to incidents involving racist overtones primarily for two reasons. First, racial incidents are often perceived as being symptomatic of problems on a much more fundamental level. Consequently, administrators may feel a moral duty to take steps which are supposedly designed to deal with the underlying causes of the incidents.

Second, many administrators fear being labelled as "indecisive" with respect to their ability to handle these types of situations. After all, "indecisive" is often equated with "insensitive" by the college population in particular and the public in general.

Racial incidents usually share a common feature in that at least one side will claim a constitutional right to freely express their particular point of view. Given the reverence Americans have historically attached to individual freedoms of all varieties, administrators are often at a loss when attempting to effectively counter this type of argument. Evidence of this inability is the growing number of institutions adopting various forms of "harassment" policies.

While the adoption of an harassment policy may appear to be a reasonable and even appropriate means of responding proactively to racial incidents, in reality there are a number of valid reasons why this is exactly the kind of response that should be avoided.

The rationale behind the development and implementation of an harassment policy is essentially admirable. Most of us who consider ourselves to be relatively tolerant of diversity tend to feel that anyone (or any group) who does not share our orientation is simply "wrong". Whenever we attempt to foist this view on others by administrative decree, however, we violate our own belief system. If conformity is achieved by mandate, it will invariably lead to superficial compliance and be of limited duration; i.e., witness the recent events in Eastern Europe.

Although the various ramifications which stem from racial incidents are admittedly complex and far-reaching, ultimately there is only one legitimate course of action based on the premise that it is always more desirable to reason with people of divergent viewpoints that it is to attempt to silence them.

For all its proponents, it must be recognized and accepted that censorship simply does not work. It is remarkably ineffective as a means of restricting actions that are outside institutionally established norms. This does not signify any new insight and should not come as any great revelation to the more enlightened within our midst. You would think that such a fundamental idea would have gained more of a following by now.

Not so.

In the 1920s, it was not uncommon to hear of expulsion from a particular college or university for such reasons as "not being a typical Syracuse girl" or for "not being in sympathy with the management". Ridiculous? Take note. Seventy years later, in the 1990s, colleges and universities still espouse policies which contain such phraseology as "only wholesome demonstrations permitted" and "students may be dismissed if their 'state of mind' so dictates."

Same basic issues . . . . same basic response. Any type of censorship inevitably finds advocates that distort the original intent and spirit of the reason it was implemented in the first place. There will always be those who will find a valid way of using your own argument against you. And, so the logic goes, if it can be shown that you are somehow inconsistent, then the validity of your position is immediately suspect and your overall judgment may be called into question.

An unfortunate side effect of censorship seems to be its congenital ability to create martyrs. Restriction breeds desire. Witness the recent controversy surrounding the rap group, 2 Live Crew. Although the album, "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" had been on the market for well over a year, it did not become a best seller until attempts were made to inhibit its distribution and sale. The members of the group are now millionaires, cashing in on their new found status as martyrs and defenders of free speech.

Censorship also creates and drives conspiracy theories. Admittedly, some groups and individuals espouse controversial views primarily as a means of precipitating a reaction from other groups and individuals. Even so, any attempt to suppress those views inevitably becomes an assault on the right to free speech. If you attempt to censor someone, the inescapable reality is that you will almost certainly be cast in the role of oppressor.

In essence, censorship inhibits genuine dialogue and legitimate inquiry; deliberate suppression of unpopular viewpoints tends to adversely affect communication. Many whites, for example, have been conditioned to watch what they say around blacks out of fear that their views will be misunderstood and, consequently, they will be slapped with the "racist" label.

Most harassment policies are merely tactful and diplomatic forms of socially-sanctioned censorship. As such, they are fundamentally counterproductive.

In addition to being unnecessary, most of these policies are legally indefensible.

For reference purposes, it should be noted that administrators' only legitimate means of "controlling" free expression of ideas include (1) actions taken to establish reasonable time, place, and manner of free expression, and (2) actions taken to prevent invasion of privacy and breach of confidentiality, defamation of character, advocacy of imminent lawless action, "fighting words", speech or actions that are vulgar, rude, offensive and/or obscene, and disruption of the academic environment.

So how do we deal with overt racist expression without resorting to some derivative of censorship? Well, there are a number of strategies that can be employed.

One possible recourse is to utilize state ethnic intimidation laws as reference points from which to administer disciplinary sanctions. In Michigan, for example, incidents which embody racial overtones may lead to criminal prosecution if it can be shown that such acts 1) involve unwanted physical contact between individuals or groups, 2) cause any real or personal property to be damaged, destroyed, or defaced, or 3) contain threats, either by word or act, pertaining to the two conditions described above.

A similar strategy is to institute harsher disciplinary penalties for students who violate conduct regulations and it is determined that the infraction is racially motivated. Accordingly, disciplinary regulations should stipulate appropriate sanctions for direct, face-to-face verbal insults that convey a threat of violence--or are likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation.

Within this context, however, it must be noted that generalized forms of expression (newsletters, posters, speeches, T-shirts, etc.) cannot be considered within this category and thus, legally, have no basis.

Another approach is to actively promote more, rather than less, debate and discussion concerning racial issues. It is imperative that racist ideologies be challenged and condemned wherever they find expression. Contrary to the belief held by some administrators, it is possible to affirm freedom of expression while also firmly denouncing the contents of that expression.

Education can have a profound ability to discredit many such views, but only in an atmosphere that encourages free and open discussion of a wide range of opinions.

Administrators should also develop and implement programs that encourage students of divergent backgrounds (and viewpoints) to work together for the common good. The literature abounds with descriptions of efforts aimed at reducing cultural and ideological barriers--many of which seem to be especially adroit at accomplishing this goal. For example, a number of rather innovative programs have been built around the basic premise that success in accomplishing the program objective is only possible with a high degree of black/white cooperation.

Along these same lines, traditional programs should be multi-culturally enhanced at every opportunity. Students need exposure to other cultures so that the fallacies of stereotypic thinking can be demonstrated in a practical sense. This is not always possible when the primary focus of a program is to achieve "multicultural awareness" in and of itself. Student responsiveness is often much better if such "awareness" comes in the form of a nonthreatening byproduct.

On a very fundamental level, racism must be perceived as innately un-American due to the fact that it undermines what is perhaps our greatest contribution to humanity: a truly pluralistic society. It is incumbent upon us in the college community to always actively affirm both diversity and shared values.