“A popular free expression area UC San Diego has come under scrutiny following hate speech complaints,” reports The College Fix.
“One of UC San Diego’s most popular spaces for student expression, the Graffiti Art Park, is now under evaluation by the University and cross-campus student councils following student complaints to the University that the space violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,” the student newspaper reported.
The report does not state exactly what words or images prompted the complaints. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal funding.
The federal appeals court with jurisdiction over UC San Diego has imposed obligations on colleges that are in tension with each other, saying schools can be liable for a “hostile learning environment” created by racist speech, but also telling colleges that the First Amendment typically protects racist or racially-charged speech by students and instructors, even when such speech triggers complaints or litigation by minority students and staff, or triggers complaints that the speech created a hostile environment (Contrast Rodriguez v. Maricopa Community College District (2010) and Reges v. Cauce (2025) with Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School District (1998)).
The student newspaper notes that “an undisclosed number of students have reported Title VI complaints to the University against the popular art installation due to the park’s unrestricted content rules, which they claim have led to instances of discrimination and hate speech.”
The Graffiti Art Park was set up a dozen years ago. Located within a eucalyptus grove close to the student center, “it consists of eight double-sided, plywood canvases, inviting students to paint, draw, write, and express themselves.”
“Often times the canvases feature artistic images but can also contain messages and slogans surrounding politics and other hot-button topics. The complaints over the park were discussed at a recent student government meeting, and some ideas tossed around included having student monitors keep watch on the canvases.”
However, students emphasized that they did not seek removal of the park. “News articles about the park over the years describe it as providing a valuable venue for avant-garde artistic expression.”
“One of the few places the soul of our campus really shines through. Sometimes the boards will have something funny, often more serious signs of the times, sometimes things I disagree with and move on with my day,” said one student. “Either way they keep us grounded and marginally make this campus feel like our own. These boards were meant to concentrate free expression to an allowed area, out of sight from the rest of the campus community, and now there are people trying to take that small sliver away. Keep an eye on who is trying to take that away and who concedes.”
Members of the student government have suggested moving the canvases further back into the grove, remind students that the canvases can be repainted over at any time by anybody, and assigning student groups to monitor the canvases.
John Payne, associate director of University Centers, noted that while “There are concerns about the Graffiti Art Park and it being used as a medium for hate speech”, “Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.”
The Supreme Court has said that it violates the First Amendment to ban hate speech in society as a whole, in decisions such as R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) and Matal v. Tam (2017). It has not directly addressed hate speech on campus, but in two past rulings, it indicated that free speech is basically as broad in state universities as it is in society as a whole, which means that hate speech cannot be banned on college campuses, either (see Healy v. James (1972) and Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri (1973)).
