More handpicked essays just for you.
Free speech on college campuses paper
Free speech on college campuses paper
Free speech on campus essay research paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In his essay “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” Derek Bok, wrote about an incident at Harvard University where two students displayed the Confederate flag and to retaliate another student displayed a swastika. This started a discussion at the University of whether to prohibit such forms of expression. Bok claims that freedom of speech on campuses should be valued above the protection of a student’s feelings. In addition, he argued that censorship will not resolve this issue; only educating the students and having discussions was the solution. But such solution may not be enough. For instance, in an article on The Odyssey Online, it was written that “Speech codes are necessary to have on college campuses because they help promote a safe and positive learning environment for all students regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds”. (Raddatz) They suggest that by enforcing speech codes, it will foster a better environment for minority students and will prevent more serious hate crimes from occurring. …show more content…
I feel we need to come to an agreement of how much disrespectful speech is accepted. I say this because the student who is offended has just as much right to attend school and not encounter discrimination and hatred towards them as the person practicing their freedom of expression. Like Bok said regarding the display of those unpleasant symbols “they must have known that they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others”. (Bok) What I take from this is that one demonstrates such symbols with the purpose to disrespect and disregard any common forms of respect towards
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
What is considered offensive? Is it considered offensive to use obscenities around children? According to many people in the United States, it is sport team names and mascots that depict a certain group of people are considered offensive. People around the United States are trying to get professional sport teams to change their names and mascots because they feel it depicts their certain race in bad way. Teams should have to change their mascot and their name if they are named after a certain group of people.
Charles R. Lawrence intended audience in his article “On Racist Speech” is college students and universities. His sense of tone is forthcoming. Lawerence word choice sets the tone by using the words conspicuous,dissenter, and bigot. The article gives examples of how universities do not protect minority college students. Lawrence states that universities should protect their students He also gives an example of how universities have tried to have rules to ban racist speech yet they have proven ineffective in stopping racial slurs. The regulations have not stopped the verbal brutality yet it has stopped the occurrences of physical fights. He mentions how students do not have any need to be hurt verbally.
Although some like Conor Friedersdorf, of the Atlantic, categorized students as “intolerant bullies, (34)” meaning that the reasons for protests were not really reasons at all. Chang argues that the issues students are expressing need to be improved upon as if not, we will continue to go round and round in this vicious cycle. The addition of the apartheid in South Africa backs up Chang’s argument as there is a consensus of it being a serious issue. This explains why he included this piece of history and how it relates to college campuses. Encouraging critics to listen to students, just as Meyer did to those of color, is the only way to prevent today's youth from bring up the same issues in future years. Just as Chang predicted, the next school year brought protesters to hundreds of colleges and universities. What happened at Mizzou was just the beginning of a country wide movement for racial justice on campuses that hasn’t stopped
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
The First Amendment of the United States gives citizens the five main rights to freedom. Freedom of speech is one of the rights. If people did not have the freedom of speech there would be no way of expressing one’s self and no way to show individuality between beliefs. This Amendment becomes one of the issues in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Supreme Court case that happened in December of 1969. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines there were five students that got suspended for wearing armbands to protest the Government’s policy in Vietnam. Wearing these armbands was letting the students express their beliefs peacefully. Many people would consider that the school did not have the authority to suspend these petitioners because of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Should the First Amendment stop protecting hate speech? In Derek Bok’s “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, he argues that hate speech should be protected as censorship would be against the First Amendment. He declares “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communications is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree is offensiveness against the potential value of communication.... if we were to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (Bok 67) What Bok is attempting to say is that we can technically declare anything as offensive. The idea of hate speech is varying on the opinion of a person rather than law.
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.
With that being said, all Americans should be allowed to live in a country where they feel safe and free of hatred. If a historical symbol fuels hatred, violence, and fear then the display of such a symbol would only misinterpret the meaning of the land of the free.
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.
...e, R. (1994). The regulation of hate speech on college campuses and the Library Bill of
When America experiences some great trauma, our freedom of speech often faces its own trauma. Across the country, people are expressing opinions unpopular with American culture post. September 11 th. In Colorado, school officials demonstrate the new rush to suppress any un-American sentiment by “forcing a student to remove an upside down American flag sewn on the seat of her jeans [calling it] an obscene insult to Americanism” (Leo). Blinded by their patriotism, these school officials disregarded the student’s first amendment rights.
Charles R. Lawrence III adresses the matter in his essay “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims,” by providing the perspective of those on the reciving end. He explains that “racial slurs are particularly undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetuator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialoge, but to injure the victim” (628). This argument is justified because some people do take their freedom of speech as far as offending someone because of their race, cultural, and social beliefs. As Cinnamon Stillwell proved in her essay, “Mob Rule on College Campuses,” some students do become bullies when their beliefs are challenged. Stillwell illistrates a situation that occurred at Columbia University when conservative Jim Gilchrist was invited to speak but was unable to because rioting students did not allow him. Stillwell then goes on to say that “Apparently in their minds, niether Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has the right to express their viewpoints” (623). This can be applied to both sides because both of them seem to believe that the opposing belief has no right to speak especially when it is controversial. Lawrence mentions that “whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the
"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
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