4.2.12 WC: 191694 whether it is better to leave the decision as to which words in which contexts are prohibited to the after-the-fact discretion of an administrator, or to decide in advance on a list or category of prohibited expressions. In other words, is it more protective of freedom of expression to have a “censorship common-law” to be applied on an ad-hoc basis by a dean, or to have a “censorship code” debated and agreed upon in advance by the equivalent of the legislative branch of the university — a student or faculty senate or some other representative body. I strongly favor a narrow code to a potentially broad common-law, because it provides advanced fair warning and an opportunity to challenge the provisions of the code before they are enforced. (That’s why I also favor a narrow code criminalizing the publication of only the most dangerous state secrets). In 2002, there was an ugly racial incident at Harvard Law School that led to a campaign by some student groups for censorship of offensive speech. The dean appointed a committee to recommend an approach to this delicate problem. He put me on the committee because of my vocal opposition to censorship and my support for a maximalist position on freedom of speech. My fellow committee members were surprised when I proposed that we try to draft a speech code. “T thought you favored freedom of speech”, one of the libertarian student members said in frustration. “T do,” I replied. “That’s why I want a code. I don’t trust the dean — or anyone else — to decide which speech should be prohibited.” “No speech should be prohibited,” the student replied. I then gave my examples of the professor and the “N” word. “That’s different,” the student insisted. “Then let’s try to codify exactly what else may be ‘different’”, I responded. The committee spent more than a year trying to come up with a code of prohibited expressions, but it could not come to any agreement. The “N” word itself could not be prohibited because a blac