Syracuse University is no stranger to the free speech debate. But based on this year’s past events, most SU community members are strangers to the real issue at hand.

The entire HillTV controversy and Ann Coulter’s recent political speech sponsored by the College Republicans illustrated the blurry line in many people’s minds of what is protected free speech and what violates the SU nondiscrimination policy – specifically, hate speech. In both of these events, some people argued the childish, deeply disturbing speech should be protected by the First Amendment, while some people argued the speech violated SU policy and was hate speech, worthy of punishment.

But the policy seems inherently flawed. It states no one can ‘discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, disability, sexual orientation’ and veteran status. The speakers in ‘Over the Hill,’ as well as Coulter, made comments that seemed to discriminate several of those components.

Self-contradiction rears its ugly head here because the policy includes ‘creed.’ In other words, the university cannot discriminate against anyone for his or her creed, or her beliefs, no matter how racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. It seems the ‘Over the Hill’ speakers and Coulter are protected by the same nondiscrimination policy they violated.

Not so fast. The First Amendment, not the policy, protected Coulter’s speech because it was political speech, said David Rubin, dean of the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. In that case, no university speech policy need apply.

It need apply to the ‘Over the Hill’ content, dorm room white board slurs and racist jeers yelled across the Quad, however. The university defines this as hate speech and as a private university, it can set up its own rules to trump free speech. In the ‘real world,’ hate speech against a group – not individuals – however incredibly disturbing, is protected. Thank America’s wealthy, white, male founders for that.

And there lies the real debate: What rules should we follow first, the United States’ or SU’s? The HillTV and Coulter debaters must abandon their free speech versus hate speech dispute.

‘The tension we have is whether a private institution should live by societal First Amendment protection or whether a private institution should go its own way,’ Rubin said. ‘At this point, Syracuse as an institution tilts toward having a code and enforcing it.’

Sadly enough, since the same racial, gender and other social hierarchies will exist in the minds and institutions of SU, another HillTV episode or Coulter appearance will occur. The same debate will ensue. Again, the nondiscrimination policy will be cited as means for judicial punishment. Until the SU community of students, professors and staff, decides whether it should follow the law of the United States or SU, we’ll all be strangers to the next Coulter or HillTV protest.