On November 15th I attended the CHASS event, “Liberty in Peril: Threats to Free Speech on Campus”. I learned the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) was formed when political correctness was getting out of control on college campuses and it’s known for rating speech codes at colleges across the nation. I learned what speech codes are. Speech codes are punishments that apply if a student or faculty member says something on campus they’re not supposed to, but they can say it off campus without punishment. I discovered NCSU has a yellow speech code rating, which means we have at least one ambiguous policy that easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application. Mr. Shibley explained the 6 groups of people that have political interference threatening free speech. Political interference comes from, administrators, the public, trustees, faculty, politicians, and students. What I noticed about myself was how little I knew about free speech cautions that students and professors need to have on college campuses and how many cases universities nationwide have handled regarding threats to free …show more content…
I learned how creative expression can relieve stress and clear minds more than I thought, as well as the benefits I can gain from participating in something artistic. What I noticed about myself was my original negative attitude changed to a positive one as I created my collage of quotes. When I was leaving I felt reenergized and ready to start working on my assignments again. I felt more balanced again. What I noticed about our community was all the students there had at least one thing they were stressed about, but during the free expression session they were relaxed and appeared to enjoy whatever they were creating. I also noticed the Counseling Center staff encouraged and included all participates to make whatever they feel like will benefit them the
Throughout America, people place a high value in their freedom of speech. This right is protected by the first Amendment and practiced in communities throughout the country. However, a movement has recently gained momentum on college campuses calling for protection from words and ideas that may cause emotional discomfort. This movement is driven mainly by students who demand that speech be strictly monitored and punishments inflicted on individuals who cause even accidental offense. Greg Lukianoff and Johnathan Haidt discuss how this new trend affects the students mentally and socially in their article The Coddling of the American Mind published in The Atlantic Monthly. Lukianoff and Haidt mostly use logical reasoning and references to
College is full of new experiences, new people, and new communities, and many universities encourage the exchange of new ideas and diversity among students. This year, the University of Chicago sent out a letter to all of its incoming freshmen informing them that in keeping with their beliefs of freedom of expression and healthy discussion and debate, the school would not provide “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings”. Senior Sophie Downes found this letter to be misleading in many ways, including in the definitions of safe spaces and trigger warnings, as well as the issues it was addressing. Downes claims that the letter was misrepresenting the school, but also was using the letter as a sort
In the editorial “Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt examine the political correctness on college campuses and how it may be hurting students’ mental health. They explain by allowing campuses to discuss words, ideas, and subjects that can cause discomfort or give offense can provide positive attributes like helping students to produce better arguments and more productive discussions over differences. Does Lukianoff and Haidt provide sufficient evidence about how college campuses should raise attention about the need to balance freedom of speech to help students in their future and education to lead the reader to agree with their argument? The answer is yes,
In the world today, Freedom of Speech is taken to a different level than what one may imply verbally. With social media, political debates, and the outpour of sexual orientation the First Amendment is exercised in its full capacity. Protecting Freedom of Expression on the campus is an article written by Derek Bok expressing his concerns regarding the display of a confederate flag hung from a window on the campus of Harvard University. The Confederate flag to some is a symbol of slavery and to others it is a symbol of war, or perhaps known as the “Battle Flag”. In this paper one will review Bok’s opinion of the First Amendment, clarity of free speech in private versus public institutions and the actions behind the importance of ignoring or prohibiting such communications according to the First Amendment.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom becomes limited via “free speech zones.” Free Speech Zones are areas allocated for the purpose of free speech on campus. These zones bypass our constitutional right to freedom of speech by dictating where and when something can be said, but not what can be said.
So, what is college hate speech? According to Griffin, Sullivan, and Robertson (2010), hate speech is
How much we valuse the right of free speech is out to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life promises the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Where racist, sexist and homphobic speech is concerned, I believe that more speech - not less - is the best revenge. This is particualrly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. They can organize effectively to encounter bad attitudes, possibly to change them, and imitate togetherness against the forces of intolerance.
Some colleges are considering speech codes and regulations on campus due to allegations of racist speech and harassment. Although the reasons are legitimate concerns, these codes should not be placed on students because they do not only violate The First Amendment, but also promote administrative abuse of power, along with causing students to self-censor their speech, while teaching them to hide and or suppress their unpopular beliefs. There are some such as, Cinnamon Stillwell and Charles R. Lawrence III, which are in favor of speech codes because they consider some of the actions a form of harassment. While others such as, Harvey B. Silverglate, Greg Lukianoff, and Howard M. Wasserman oppose the codes and regulations because they insist that
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
Earlier this month in April, student protestors rioted at Berkley University because they did not want certain Conservative guest speakers to be able to give speeches at the university due to some of the speakers comments being inappropriate. According to the nonprofit organization committed to defending civil liberties named The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), "One worrisome trend undermining open discourse in the academy is the increased push by some students and faculty to 'disinvite' speakers with whom they disagree from campus appearances" (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). While the protesters were practicing their first amendment right to petition, the students were infringing upon the Conservative speakers freedom of speech which is unconstitutional. Just because the protesters may have disagreed with the speakers comments, does not mean that theys hould have prevented them from being able to express them. This is similar to the novel 1984 because the protestors controlled and censored what was able to be said at Berkeley University, just like how in the novel the Thought Police controlled what citizens said just because The Party disagreed with certain perspectives and didn’t want certain information to be
In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into
A Burmese comedian by the name of Zarganar was sentenced to 35 years for violating the Electronics Acts in 2008. Afterwards, Zarganar received an additional 14 years for supporting destructive acts against the state. Even though he was arrested and sentenced for violating the Electronics Acts and Video Acts, his only real crime was openly criticizing the Burmese government's handling of a past incident (Farrington 66). The Burmese government and others like it are the types of governments our nation's founders separated from and protested against. America has recently began to resemble these governments, in the way it restricts people's freedom of expression. America has slowly strayed away from our forefathers' original ideas of freedom of speech. In order to truly be the land of the free, Americans must learn to tolerate the views of others instead of limiting them.
In the article “The Threat to Free Speech at Universities”, the author Greg Lukianoff expresses concern over methods which universities are employing to protect free speech, and how many people are abusing those methods. He especially makes emphasis on how many people are simply declaring speech they don’t like as harassment, and making it harder to draw the line between what truly is harmful speech and what is not. I disagree with the author because while he makes a valid point, the perception of what is harmful speech varies from person to person. While one person might not take offense to a statement, there may be a dozen others who do. This illogical ideology has been used to harm people for centuries ; when offense is taken to a statement,
Erosion of Free Speech “The U.S. and Britain have long thought of themselves as, above all, free countries. If that identity continues to atrophy, free speech will be the first victim. But it will not be the last.” [O'Sullivan, John]. Where O’Sullivan ends his article, “No Offense: The New Threats to Free Speech”, I can begin: countries who often pride themselves on their freedom, the U.S. especially, seem to be losing their grip on reality as their citizens lose their grip on free speech.
Freedom of speech is the right given to every individual. Everyone has been given the right to speak their mind and share their opinions. This right is always important but in higher learning, it is essential. Without freedom of speech the whole idea of higher education would just be a contradiction. When an institute of higher education tries to resist this right the whole purpose of the institute becomes contradicted. One needs their right to freely speak their mind for higher education to be a successful venture. The right to free speech is essential in higher education because it gives the individual the chance to fearlessly be who they are, the mind substance to develop and, the opportunity to bring better ideas about.