Hate speech regulation has been the topic of debate by college and university campuses for a long period of time. These campuses find themselves in a sticky situation; the constitution defends the right to free speech, the same speech that is causing hate speech problems on campuses across the nation. Hate speech should be regulated across university and college campuses because of the potential psychological harm that a student is placed in, the obligations that a university or college has towards the student, and the idea that hate speech brings no tangible or intangible benefit to these campuses. Students, especially younger students, are said to be in a stage of emotional development even at the time of college. Many university students …show more content…
Hate speech interferes with these values that these institutions. Gellman argues for free speech rights, stating that “laws which limit or chill thought and expression detract from the goal of insuring the availability of the broadest possible range of ideas”(Cooper 177). The flaw in Gellman’s argument lies in the nature of hate speech. Matsuda counters through her interpretation of hate speech as something that interferes and “shuts down conversations and keeps us from the important work of learning”(Cooper 153). Lawrence also makes the point that a face to face insult can, in some cases, feel like a slap in the face, which is meant to stun the victim and end conversation. When the environment of learning is disturbed, it prevents these campuses from providing a suitable learning condition that should be guaranteed to those who pay to go to school. After all, it is not only the privileged who pay for the education that is available to many across the nation. Even underprivileged and working poor are paying taxes that support state universities. The children of these taxpayers deserve an education where they won’t be distracted or emotionally harmed by circulating hate speech. Bok suggests that those who are victims of hate speech ignore what is said; however, others may find hate speech difficult to ignore, as it could be related to something that has happened before in their lives. An example of hate speech that is hard to ignore would be going back to the anecdote of my friend and the anti-semitist. My friend had ancestors who were killed in the Holocaust, and as a result, it was extremely difficult for him to ignore the aggressor when he talked about his family burning in ovens. This is also an example of how he was denied a comfortable educational environment, as he ended up missing the last few lectures.
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
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.
Students entering college for the first time become concerned with their college life. The students are on their own once they enter college. There are no parents or guardians telling them when to do homework, when to go to bed, or how to eat healthy. These students are now responsible for how they are going to succeed in school and meet their own needs. From the beginning, these students wonder what their experience is going to be like and are they going to handle the demands of college?
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.
And even though the First Amendment grants us the freedom of speech, including such hate speech, there are limits. The federal and all state governments, including public colleges and universities and private schools that accept federal financial aid, cannot unnecessarily regulate speech, with the following exceptions: “obscenity, figh...
Living in the United States we enjoy many wonderful freedoms and liberties. Even though most of these freedoms seem innate to our lives, most have been earned though sacrifice and hard work. Out of all of our rights, freedom of speech is perhaps our most cherished, and one of the most controversial. Hate speech is one of the prices we all endure to ensure our speech stays free. But with hate speeches becoming increasingly common, many wonder if it is too great of a price to pay, or one that we should have to pay at all.
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
According to an article by Josephine Marcotty in Minneapolis’ Star Tribune from April 10, college students lead “hyper-enriched lives,” said Greg Kneser, dean of students at St. Olaf College. That’s what makes this generation of students distinct from its predecessors, he said. That is why more students who cannot cope with these feelings end up at college counseling centers with “increasingly serious mental-health problems.” 15 to 20 percent of college students nationally were diagnosed with depression. The second most common diagnosis was severe anxiety. According to the article, it is not unusual for mental-health issues to become apparent during a student’s college years.
Critics believe that American citizens take advantage of civil liberties supporting limits on freedom of speech. They believe that degradation of humanity is inherent in unregulated speech. For example, according to Delgado and Stefancic, a larger or more authoritative person can use hate speech to physically threaten and intimidate those who are less significant (qtd. in Martin 49). Freedom of speech can also be used to demoralize ethnic and religious minorities. Author Liam Martin, points out that if one wants to state that a minority is inferior, one must prove it scientifically (45-46). Discouraging minorities can lead to retaliation, possibly resulting in crimes or threatening situations. "Then, the response is internalized, as it must be, for talking back will be futile or even dangerous. In fact, many hate crimes have taken place when the victim did just that-spoke back to the aggressor and paid with his or her life" (qtd. in Martin 49). Therefore, critics believe that Americans do not take into account the harm they may cause people and support limits on freedom of speech.
Lawrence’s reasons, “Carefully drafted university regulations would bar the use of words as assault weapons…”(67). The education system holds primarily the younger generations who one day will run this country. We want to encourage a nation that sticks to the values that are expected and continue to have an integrated society. I agree with Lawrence that regulations need to be added, but why stop at just the education system? If an enforcement is going to be made on what can be said verbally through hate speech in one area, I believe that it should be present in all aspects such as the work field, public places, and media. There is not a way to make a strong government ban on the use of every form of hate speech but if larger industries start declaring it unacceptable it will set an example for society to follow. No one should feel as if they do not belong in a certain area or place due to their ethnicity or race. The most current situation could be Americans discriminating against Muslims and relating them to ISIS, this may not seem like segregation but it is discriminating and separating someone due to assumptions about them due to their background that they cannot change. Slowly but surely, if one American steps up and takes action our nation has the power to change hate speech forever and encourage a peaceful
A hate crime is a crime motivated by several reasons that include religion, sexual orientation, race, nationality, gender etc. It typically involves physical violence, intimidation, threats and other means against the individual that is being targeted. It is a crime against the person and it can have a devastating impact on the victim. Several argue that hate crimes should be punished more severely. However, it is not a crime to hate someone or something if it does not lead to some sort of criminal offense.
In the article it is clear what the argument is about as presented in the title “Why College Freshman Need to Take Emotions 101”. These experts studied many ways of how college students have many reasons to be in the mind set they are in from the beginning of early life. The two Yale Center authors Diana Divecha and Robin Stern who performed a research to determine the cause and effect of college students who was dealing with my problems including anxiety, emotional, health, and even living without the dependency of there parents.
Why is it, that people’s feelings seem to be more important than free speech in today’s society? Is “hate speech” not covered by free speech? this frightening trend present in society – the idea that words cause harm, and should therefore be limited.
I chose to examine the ways in which safe spaces, as well as trigger warnings and microaggressions, violate free speech on college campuses which led me to my question: Do safe spaces limit other students’ and professors’ rights to free speech? The article I originally read argued that safe spaces and the oversensitivity of students are limiting their academic growth. Oversensitivity is preventing professors from teaching or saying what they want, and safe spaces are keeping students from hearing the ideas of others, whether or not they agree with them. Three of the additional five sources I looked at had the same perspective. A common understanding between these sources was that “universities are, first and foremost, designed to encourage