Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Freedom of speech important in higher education
Freedom of speech on college campuses
Freedom of speech on college campuses
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Freedom of speech important in higher education
The First Amendment, usually equated with freedom of speech, affords five protections: Establishment Clause, Free exercise of religion, Freedom of speech, Freedom of press, and Freedom to peaceable assemble. Students (and student groups) in public colleges and universities enjoy full protection under the First Amendment; however, this right depends greatly on the context in which a student might raise a free speech claim. Once an institution creates a limited public forum for a student or group, administration cannot deny recognition to particular student or groups based on viewpoints. Given the great freedom students are afforded, the freedom is not absolute. The courts have allowed administrators to place reasonable restrictions on location, time, and manner of students and groups. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the court made it clear that, students do not “… shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door." To strengthen the importance of free speech on campus the court said, in Shelton v. Tucker “The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American Schools.” These rights allow students to be able to take courses in a wide variety of subject matter, which may include topics often considered controversial. Moreover, student must have the ability to explore and discuss those topics without fear censorship or retaliation. Because of the rights given to students in the Frist Amendment, school administrators cannot prohibit student from being ignorant, hateful, mean, or even using offensive speech. Consider the case Street v. New York, the Supreme Court held that speech could not be restricted because it is offensive. In this case the court stated “… it is ... ... middle of paper ... ... the established case law because of the schools ability to limit those freedoms. When looking at restricting or granting student or group speech administrators must be consistent, because allowing one student or group to expression their First Amendment right opens a door for other student or groups that can be difficult to close. The institution should have clear policies that designate Public Forums, Designated Public Forums, Limited Public Forums, and Non-public Forms. Furthermore, a policy should be created explaining a student’s rights with procedures for a student to redress grievances. Beyond the established policies, administers must be aware of (and have training in) student rights, but should also understand the breadth of power public institutions have to restrict those freedoms when the expression of those freedoms would cause disruption to the school.
The case also states “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District). Because the students didn 't necessarily disrupt the education process, their First Amendment freedom of speech should not have been violated by the school officials.
The district court found the disruptive-conduct rule unconstitutionally vague and broad, and that withdrawal of the student's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the rule did not mention such removal as a likely sanction. The court made the case that nothing in the Constitution forbids the states from insisting that certain forms of expression are unfitting and subject to sanctions. (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969) The court affirmed that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."(Tinker) If the student had given the same speech off the school premises, he would not have been penalized because government officials found his language inappropriate.
In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the students’ first amendment right was violated. They were not able to express their opinions freely. The first Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” (Classifying Arguments in the Cas...
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District by Justice Abe Fortas, and the transcript from Supreme Court Landmark Series: Tinker v. Des Moines, both discuss the same court case. After a careful analysis of these texts, the reader comes to understand the argument concerning those who believe certain kinds of speech should be prohibited within an educational setting and those who believe the opposite. However, this analysis leads one to recognize that “Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” majority opinion presents a much stronger argument than the interview with Professor Catherine Ross because it had more facts, court cases, and credibility
The Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines held that students do not necessarily shed their constitutional rights when they enter onto school grounds. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). However, the court recognizes the school’s special relationship with the students including abilities to limit freedoms on campus like speech that are not necessarily the same as adults outside school grounds. Id. The court established a two-prong test to determine the constitutionality of those limitations, of which either can be met. Id. The first prong is the forecast of a substantial disruption of the work of the school. Id. The second is the infringement of the rights of other students to be let alone. Id.
There have been many cases where exceptions have been made over the first amendment, such as in the Tinker vs. Des Moines Community School District Case. Teenagers by the name of Christopher Eckhardt and Mary Beth Tinker had planned to wear black armbands to their school to show their support for a truce in the Vietnam War. When word reached the principle, of Christopher and Mary Beth’s plan to arrive with the black armbands, the principal created a policy stating that, “any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension.” (The Oyez Project). After being kicked out of school, Tinker’s parents sued them but their case was dismissed due to the fact that the first amendment does not grant one the right to express their opinion at any place nor at any time. Another official claimed that the first amendment is not fully guaranteed to children. While the first amendment may be a boon to the United States, it is not always just. There are limitations, and conditions surrounding the first amendment and our freedom of speech. In Tinker’s case, her armband was seen as disruptive, and distracting to other students, justifying the school’s actions against the student of suspending and eventually expelling
"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
Through using case laws, the First Amendment, and previous cases, Justice Abe Fortas explains the reasoning behind why the principal was not permissible. In the first two paragraphs, Fortas provides a brief summary stating how the policy banning armbands go against the First Amendment. In the following paragraph, Fortas says, “Only a few of the 18,00 students in the school system wore the black armbands.” When introducing his first argument, he supports this fact explaining how “the work of the schools or any class was [not] disrupted.” As for the fourth paragraph, Justice Fortas provides a counter argument with what the District Court said. The District Court concluded the school authorities were reasonable since it was based upon their fear o...
On the other hand, students have the right to speak out for what they believe in without having any interference; they have the right to voice their opinion. This protection is all due to the first amendment protection. The first amendment protects the students and also the teachers’ freedom of speech, that includes during and out of school. With the protection of the first amendment no person is able to violate your right to freedom of speech. Any pers...
The first amendment entitles the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of speech. Freedom of speech allows us the right to express our opinions without government interference. So you have the right to talk about the government, the president and, whomever as long as it does not incite violence. But why do universities feel as if they could take away free speech from individuals. This is why free speech zones are a necessity and, should be allowed on college campuses. Without these zones we mock the idea of expression that the first amendment gives us.
In fact, the rights are the rights in or out of school. The students should be allowed to do their rights. No matter the age to speak, they should be allowed to say what they want. The amendments are the amendments no matter what the schools say. There is one passage that gives the most and best evidence in these arguments, but don’t pick just listen.
Martin P. Golding, the writer of Campus Speech Issues, examines the difference between freedom of speech, which is an american right by the first amendment, compared to speech codes, which are implemented in university rules and regulations to monitor and police certain unsavory speech on school grounds.
Amendment 1 in the Bill of Right states that, Congress will not be able to dictate freedom of speech, establishment of religion. So should students be allowed to speech freely about what they believe in a class room, the answer is pretty easy to answer after this following statement given by the Bill of Rights, which was passed into Congress on September 25, 1789 (Stone, n.d.). This amendment was passed to protect the safety of people’s words and not discriminate against it. But does this amendment made in 1789 still do justice in the college system, many people would argue no. Students claim that colleges promote hostile environments that harm minority student and hinder their ability to learn. These claims start the debate of the nature of free speech, individual rights or higher education. During the election of where President Donald Trump became president many students tried to find answers about what they personally believed. During this time the debate started, and many college started to use their rights to the extreme. Currently there are many things that college student’s debate in college setting that have to go to political thoughts of anarchism, socialism, feminism, and
College campuses have banned many offensive words and terms directed towards certain groups of people. This include racist slurs, sexist comments and speech that is demeaning or otherwise intended to offend or harm groups or individuals. Many favor these speech code enforcements in schools, while others believe it strongly violates the first amendment. Interpretation of this is left to court judges who have ruled in favor of the opposition, stating that public colleges are required to impose little in the way of speech conduct. The one exception to this is when speech has an immediate and dangerous consequence. Then it can be regulated.
Other court rulings show further expansion on how much free speech is protected on campus. The 1973 court case Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri demonstrates this in regards to vulgar language. A student had distributed a newspaper that contained obscene language and was expelled for it. The court ruled in the students favor and demonstrated that “the mere dissemination of ideas-no matter how offensive to good taste-on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency” (Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri). It is clear that the legal system’s stance on free speech in campus is firm in that your first amendment right should not be infringed based on what other people