Freedom Of Speech In Universities

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. To him the best solution to this problem is, to encourage students to ignore the obnoxious behavior, thus leading them to stop.

‘College students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like.’ Is stated in the article The Coddling of the American Mind. The authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt use logos, ethos, and pathos to discuss the issues and solutions for trigger warnings and macroaggressions on university campuses. The authors start the article off by giving examples and other pieces of literature written about trigger warnings on college campuses, these are examples of Logos. Logos is used throughout the document for example in the third paragraph the author observed the recent campus actions at Brandeis University. The actions presented stereotypical comments about Asian students such as “aren’t you supposed to be good at math,”

Ellie Reynolds advances a rhetorically effective argument on why government should not have regulatory control over offensive Native American mascots in schools across the country. She believes this control is more of a detriment to society than a service. Her article published on the DenverPost.com, “Native Americans Have Become a Political Pawn,” offers a compelling point of view on this controversial issue because Reynolds is a member of the Oglala Sioux tribe herself (Reynolds 659). Along with her strong view against government involvement on this issue, which she considers censorship by political correctness, Reynolds uses her personal experience, historical context, and the negative effects of political correctness to convey her effective

Writers Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, in their article “The Coddling of the American Mind”, detail the effects that safe spaces and trigger warnings are having on college campuses. They claim that “in the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like” and add they will explain “why that’s disastrous for education and mental health”. Through the use of the word “increasingly”, the writers recognize that not all students are following the damaging trend, but instead it is becoming progressively prevalent and as a result needs to be addressed. Throughout the article, explanations are given for the stance against shielding students from opinions they find oppressive, as well as ways to combat and fix the problem. Through this, the writers hope to promote a college experience where students can feel safe and

The Coddling of the American Mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, is an article published by the Atlantic Journal about the negative effects trigger warnings and microaggressions have on students in college. Trigger warnings are disclaimers about any potential emotional response from a class or its material. Microaggressions are words or actions that have no sinister intentions, but are taken as such. Greg Lukianoff is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. (47) As the leader of the foundation, Greg Lukianoff has witnessed and fought many legal occasions of trigger warnings and microaggressions resulting in the masking of the freedom of speech. Coauthor Jonathan Haidt is a professor at New York University’s

The case of Dread Scott v. Stanford harshly administered both exclusionary and dehumanizing language. In this case, the

In the article “Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Free Speech, too” by Sophie Downes, published in the New York Times. Downes argument in the letter sent out by Dean Ellison by the University of Chicago. The letter states that trigger warnings and safe spaces were an issue from deterring students from having free speech so therefore would not be supported by the University of Chicago campus anymore. Downes argues the letter was a poor excuse to avert attention away from the real issues on campus-ones like the dean will not meet with the student council group to talk about some of the issues going on around campus.

Hate speech—words or symbols targeted at a particular group or person that attack or intimidate them based upon sex, race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender—has recently become extremely controversial, especially in regards to college campuses. Although merely visual or verbal behaviors, hate speech can indirectly and directly cause physical and psychological harms. Philosophers Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic delve into the negative impact of hate speech in their essay “Words That Wound”, detailing exactly how supposed expressions of freedom of speech can detrimentally impact its victims. Such dire consequences thus call for targeted and threating speech to be banned in certain spaces in order to sustain a safe environment for the majority of people.

“The Coddling of the American Mind”, was quite an interesting article to read. Many thoughts were forming in my head after every sentence or paragraph in which I’ve read. In the article Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explained an issue that many college students are becoming overly sensitive about many discomforting topics and why it is causing a great damage to protect words that are being used that may cause microaggressions amongst college students. With generations changing and with new ideas forming, many are being cautious within their act. Throughout the article, both authors shared behaviors that were observed on college campuses.

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.

Free speech is America’s first amendment, which in its own clearly shows its importance. Today the true definition of free speech has seemed to have been blurred. As Lucia Martinez Valivia, professor at Reed College states: “The right to speak freely is not the same as the right to rob others of their voices.” Everyone despite difference in opinions, has the right to free speech as protected by the first amendment, and those who limit the speech of others violate the ideals of our founding fathers.

Hate is everywhere! Everywhere you turn there will always be people who hate you, your ideas, or everything. As a High School student, hate surrounds me in digital forms and physical forms. I see bullies in real life and homophobic people on my Twitter Timeline. They both share one thing in common: the first amendment. The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech.

Free speech is considered one of the essential values in the society. It protects the democratic process and ensures the diversity of thoughts and beliefs. Numerous people and groups have continuously fight for this precious right, like the UC Davis students who faced pepper spray to protest the chancellor 's wrongful behavior. Yet in recent decades, with the increasing cases of hate speech and free speech-related crime, many wonder if free speech needs some restrictions. In early February, the huge protest in UC Berkeley against Yiannopoulos, who was accused of racism and being misogynistic, caused huge damage to the public as the protesters started to act violently to stop Yiannopoulos ' speech. Both parties use the power of speech in the wrong way, and it is hard to judge which is morally worse. People started to question the value of free speech, as it brought unfairness and hurt instead of equality and justice to people.

It has been said that hate speech is just another form of expressing feelings. This argument highlights how the United States of America is a place of expression without limits. LGBT members can even come out and learn to build from any negativity. People have a right to exercise the first amendment however they want. Those who speak more freely have a better chance at allowing others to express themselves. If there are restrictions it would be more difficult for the first amendment to still be established. For example, in a University it would be hard to stop hate speech, when it is considered a place to speak freely. According to the Huffington Post, “About 78 percent of students surveyed said that colleges should allow “all types of speech and viewpoints,” while 22 percent noted that “colleges should prohibit biased or offensive speech in the furtherance of a positive learning environment(Fang).” Banning hate speech wouldn’t solve anything especially on a college campus. Most college students found it more effective to get rid of hate speech rules. It will serve people better if there isn’t any boundaries. Citizens are exposed to hate speech everywhere. Why create more rules for people to break? It shouldn’t be restricted anywhere, even a college campus. This is another way to see how other people identify with things. If that’s limited it will make it more difficult for individuals to communicate, especially when most people don’t listen to given

What does it mean to be politically correct? Political correctness, often shortened to PC, is defined as agreeing with the idea that people should be careful not to use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people. However, through generations of usage by the American government and the nation as a whole, it is obvious that this type of censorship is only a curtain for people to hide behind their real thoughts on “offensive” matters, such as sexuality and race. Many people argue that political correctness is a destructive force, one built on the foundational belief that by avoiding certain topics, the offensiveness of them will disappear entirely. It is because we as a nation are fearful of what we say, write, think, and especially of using the wrong words that may be denounced as insensitive, racist, sexist, or homophobic, that we give political correctness an unintentional, threatening power.