The idea of free speech on college campuses and the complications of it stem from those on campuses expressing views that don’t align with popular views. Implications for students who use the idea of free speech as a method for hateful actions and comments should be reprimanded, but the question remains as to whether schools should enforce tougher limitations. The freedom of speech on college campus expands to the freedoms of religion, assembly, press, and protest as well. Freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views. Removing freedoms of speech and expression have consequences deeper than surface issues. Free speech and hate speech can be classified as different topics and when arguing for one, we can also criticize the other. Free expression and free speech on campuses are crucial for sparking important conversations about equality and social justice, and the suspension of free speech and expression may have dire consequences on college campuses.
First, freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views, while also allowing students with common beliefs to align. Free speech and the call for free speech allows those who have been historically systematically oppressed to use their voice. According to President Michael Roth of Wesleyan University, “those who think they favor free speech but call for civility in all discussions should remember that battles for freedom of expression are
Political conservatives in America vastly hold true the original traditions and freedoms in America and rarely compromise with change. One such prominent conservative, John W. Whitehead, in his essay, “The Schools Are Destroying Freedom of Speech,” argues that the modern day public educational system has inflicted unconstitutional restrictions of freedom on its students. Throughout his essay, Whitehead attempts to build his credibility by utilizing the Bill of Rights and different examples to appeal to the ethos, logos, and pathos aspects of his audience – the American citizens; however, Whitehead’s apparent bias, shown through his strong conservative values and passionate tone, causes him to disregard the deeper meaning of the educational
Howard Zinn famously once said: “The First Amendment is whatever the cop on the beat says it is.” Zinn’s words may have best been exemplified in Ferguson, Missouri, in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting. The First Amendment states that no law shall be made “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble” (U.S. Constitution). Yet in Ferguson, protesters were confronted by police officers carrying military-grade equipment, and reporters were arrested while simply doing their job. Zinn appears to have been right; at least temporarily, the rights an American has under the First Amendment are whatever the cop on the beat says they are.
He aims to expound to the reader why hate speech shouldn't be included in the freedom of speech, at least on university premises, while reassuring the audience that he understands that the freedom of expression is highly essential and difficult to restrict in terms of hate speech. According to his statements, students who are subjected to racist instruction could even consider filing a lawsuit "on behalf of Blacks whose right to an equal education is denied by a university's failure to ensure a non-discriminatory educational climate" (Charles 18). To help the audience grasp the gravity of the issue, Charles chooses to explain how hate speech might escalate within legal
This shows how the freedom of speech the students had was good for them in the future and also our community. “An amicus curiae brief filed by the U.S. National Student Association, composed of college student governments said that allowing more freedoms to students would get them ready for college and make them better citizens” (The First Amendment: Tinker v. Des Moines). According to the brief, more freedom equals better community and better college preparation. This helps the students do better. By giving them more freedom it makes a better future community.
Today’s college students are becoming more sensitized to the harshness of the outside world. Instead of learning to be resilient to others’ comments, they are being taught to take offense to any little word that could in some way be connected with a bad experience they might have had, and college administrators and professors are aiding this childish behavior. They are backing this movement to make adults into children. With this new movement to rid college campuses of any speech that may make anyone feel uncomfortable, students are being treated less like adults, and more like elementary children.
This case clashes with freedom of speech, but it is also about freedom to
In January 1942, the West Virginia Board of Education adopted a resolution to enforce every student and teacher to a pledge of allegiances of the nation’s flag. If anyone refused to honor the flag he or she would be found “insubordinate” and expelled from school. The Barnett sisters were Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to pledge of allegiances while in public school. Their father would not allow them to salute the flag.
I will argue for speech codes on college campuses because they create more good than harm to students on college campuses. The two reasons in support of speech codes on college campuses are that hate speech is prohibitive to a learning environment and secondly that hate speech does cause harm to the person or persons being attacked. The strongest objection against speech codes on college campuses is that speech codes are illegal because they infringe upon the rights of US citizens because of the US Constitutions first amendment. My first reason for speech codes on college campuses is that hate speech is prohibitive to a learning environment. My reasoning for believing so is because the primary purpose of colleges/universities and general education is to promote learning and knowledge while individuals can broaden their mental horizons and develop their own opinions.
The First Amendment outlines free speech as the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government. Without the Constitution, Americans wouldn’t have basic rights and their actions and decisions would be controlled, stressing the importance of free speech. Therefore, the limitations on free speech should be no more than that said in the First Amendment as further restrictions would eliminate the foundations of human rights and freedoms in a democracy, lower one’s knowledge of their individualism, and would ultimately suppress a peaceful society. Free speech may be discussed in a multitude of ways, both positive and negative. However, the idea of limiting such freedoms is either or.
While contrasting opinions should be allowed, there has to be a line that can determine the differences between expressing opinions or influencing negative thoughts on others. However, once the specifications have been put on the expression of ideas, a citizen should still be able to find their freedom of speech as “the most cherished founding principle of the nation’s identity” (Gaudefroy 1). Rules should not restrict a group's efforts to defy unjustifiable laws. Our freedom of speech has to continue to be an important resource that is available to all citizens. Failure to comply with the citizen’s ideas would create
People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.
If someone is going to have a conversation with another person, than their freedom of speech should be protected, however; if someone had the sole intentions of causing harm or discomfort to the person that they were speaking with or at, then their freedom of speech may not be so protected. This should be of no concern to any persons on a college campus who are worrying about their right to freedom of speech or expression being neglected, considering that speech codes only work to prevent harm inflicted by hate speech to all students. I agree with Lawrence in that if we are going to end racism, we, as a society, have to take small steps in protecting minority
In Derek Bok’s, Protecting Freedom of Expression On The Campus, he brings light to the issue of censorship in universities. He states that students at Harvard University got offended after a few students displayed the confederate flag. There have been many cases in which people have tried to censor offensive material however; the Supreme Court preferred to conserve the freedom of expression. He believes that if censorship starts to take place, it will be difficult to know when to cross the line. In addition, it will not fix the initial problem since the offenders will continue to abuse others using different means.
In Nat Hentoff essay, “Should This Student Have Been Expelled?” he debates that freedom of speech should be valued no matter how it is taken by others. The one example that pops out to me is the student at Brown University, Dough Hann. He states many offensive things about several people and is expelled because it was not the first time something like this has happened. Freedom of speech is difficult subject that has many different views on it.
The term “safe space”, a supposed haven where students of minority and marginalization can feel free to express their ideas and be themselves has started a movement across college campuses nationwide. The newfangled movement is driven largely by students who wish to scrub campuses clean of offensive or discomforting topics. Safe spaces emerged during the post-Civil Rights era where women, LGBTQ, and racial minorities grew in presence on campuses; however, today they serve as refuges for like-minded people who don’t feel the need to explain or defend their personal beliefs. Recently, the safe space debate has taken a controversial turn: arguments and cases have been created over whether safe spaces provide a supportive environment or cultivate