This paper analyzes how absolutist arguments against campus harassment codes violate the spirit of the first amendment, examining in particular the United States Supreme Court ruling in "RAV v. St. Paul." The paper begins by tracing the current development of first amendment doctrine, analyzing its inadequacy in the campus hate speech debate. Next, the paper examines 22 law-review articles written in 1990-91 on campus codes, analyzing the authors' various proposals for reconciling constitutional requirements for free speech and equal protection on campuses, and especially noting the philosophy underlying the authors' recommendations for limiting hate speech. The paper shows that most commentators approved of speech codes restricting one-on-one encounters aimed at intimidating individuals because of their race, sex or other suspect category, in contrast to the majority ruling in RAV. Finally, the paper attempts to analyze the RAV ruling's impact on campus speech codes and first amendment doctrine. One hundred and seventeen footnotes are included. (SR)