In “Voices from the Margins: The regulation of Student Activism in the New Corporate University”, Elizabeth Brule analyzes how student codes of conduct are used to regulate student political advocacy on campuses in North America. Over the years, there has been an ongoing battle between student activists and institutional policies which regulate social justice advocacy work. Students continuously broadcast political views in an attempt to exercise constitutional rights of free speech. Some in which, have been sanctioned by respective educational facilities. More specifically, York University, Canada’s third largest public university, had its first Student Code of Conduct in 1970. The implementation of the code has emerged to be based on principles …show more content…
Most important being the relationship between platforming and social advocacy on campus. Generally, the idea of platforming is often seen as an aggressive approach to educate those on something one supports or opposes. An issue in which may seem conscientious or controversial, many people may have different opinions on and of course, voicing these opinions leaves room for others to take offense or feel targeted. Brule, who is most concerned about “how the process of university corporatization is transforming the internal social organization and social relations of students’ political advocacy work” (2), fails to reiterate that these findings have important consequences for the broader domain of marginalization on campuses throughout North America. Upon Brule’s findings, we must focalize the argument around this question: should students feel marginalized by giving others the ability to voice their own subjective beliefs on a public forum? Or should people have their rights to free speech stripped from them in order to protect others? This is a normative question in which we are required to choose what is of more value to us as a society. Moreover, while Brule encourages student activists to “challenge these regulatory policies” (3), she also promotes an environment where retaliation as a result of comments made becomes inevitable. By doing so, Brule contradicts the university's policy of safety and security and happens to further put the safety of opposers at risk. For example, in reference to the situation where Daniel Freeman-Mulroy was expelled from York University for participating in a Pro-Palestine demonstration. York University, being Canada’s third largest university is arguably one of the most diverse institutions. Now, we can see where platforming for “Pro-Palestine” can be oppressive to others, specifically, Israeli’s as we are aware of current relations. Who’s to say that controversial
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
Fraser (1986). During a student assembly, Senior, Matthew Fraser gave a campaign speech to elect his friend to student government. Fraser’s speech was rife with sexual innuendo. Consequently he was suspended and his name removed from the list of possible graduation speakers—he was second in his class at the time. In this case, the Court established that there is a monumental difference between the First Amendment protection of expression for “dealing with a major issue of public policy and the lewdness of Fraser’s speech” (“Key Supreme Court Cases,” 2015). Comparatively, Foster’s high school points out that there is a monumental difference between Foster’s desire to express his individuality and impress girls, and the school’s desire to regulate the serious public concern of gang activity within the school. Indeed, in the petitioner’s application of Tinkering and Chalifoux court cases, the defense notes, in both First Amendment cases the students were addressing a major public issue—political and religion statements. Foster’s message of individuality, however, decidedly lacked a message that would safeguard his First Amendment
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
Entrenched within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lies the fundamental rights that Canadian citizens share. The primary freedoms recognized within Section 2 of the Charter, such as the freedom of speech and expression, are necessary for a free and democratic society. Yet, a crucial conflict of rights exists within the system when the freedom of expression is used to perpetuate willful hatred against a certain individual or group. Controversy arises from this conflict first and foremost because the freedom of expression is meant to secure each person the right to express ideas and opinions without governmental interference, irrespective of what that opinion may be. In this paper, I will discuss the conflicting views of restricting the freedom of expression when it is used to promote hatred. I refer to the insights offered by Joel Feinberg and Joseph Raz to advance the view that the “right” to freedom of expression is not final and absolute, as expressions of hated do in fact cause real harm to people, and there rights too must be taken into consideration. Fundamental rights should be viewed as a privilege, which includes a responsibility to respect and value the rights of others to provide for a truly liberal democracy. I will refer to the landmark judicial decision in the Canadian Supreme Court case of R. v. Keegstra to argue that the rights of individuals and groups to be afforded the right to respect and dignity outweigh any claim to freedom of expression.
In the essay “In Praise of Margins,” the author Ian Frazier explains the idea that margins
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. (44) Microaggressions are words or actions that have no sinister intentions, but people take as such. (44) 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 freedom of speech. Coauthor Jonathan Haidt is a professor at New
The authors are using credentials and conclusions of someone to vouch for their argument. For example, Lukianoff and Haidt explain that public figures like “Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke”. By public figures explaining the relevance of college campuses and how attention must be increased strengthens the argument, because it is bringing attention to the issues of freedom of speech. Lukianoff and Haidt also provide examples of events being canceled, because of protests. Based on a TV commercial an event was canceled because the “’program [was] dividing people and would make for an uncomfortable and possibly unsafe environment’”. This example shows how many events, words, subjects, will cause discomfort to people causing them to be canceled. However, the examples provided shows how many people are missing out on positive learning experiences. By showing examples, it strengthens the argument by allowing the reader to realize campuses are harming students and their experiences to
Because it is a Constitutional right, the concept of freedom of speech is hardly ever questioned. “On its most basic level [freedom of speech] means you can express an opinion without fear of censorship by the government, even if that opinion is an unpopular one” (Landmark Cases). However, the actions of Americans that are included under “free speech,” are often questioned. Many people support the theory of “free speech,” but may oppose particular practices of free speech that personally offend them. This hypocrisy is illustrated by the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was protested by many, but ultimately successfully defended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The residents of this predominantly Jewish town which contained many Holocaust survivors were offended by the presence of the Neo-Nazis. However, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, who...
At this point in a college freshmen’s life, they have been in school for 14 years. Throughout those 14 years, freshmen have learned the Bill of Rights like they’ve learned how to walk and the first amendment the way they’ve learned to talk. The first amendment has been engrained in a child from the first history class in 5th grade, to the fifth history class in 9th grade and the eighth class in their senior year. In those eight years, a student has the first amendment in their head to bring to college and express themselves how they see fit and how they have been socialized to do so. According to Dinesh D’Souza, Stuart Taylor and Tim Robbins freedom of speech has been inhibited and taken out by politics and political correctness and fueled heavily by the societies need for preferential treatment.
... 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.
When freedom of speech is confined in higher institutions, it diminishes the budding adult’s importance of this crucial right. Freedom of speech was formulated by our founding fathers to insure that all citizens had a right to speak out against whatever injustices done to them without fear of punishment. However, the institutions that are responsible for the advancement of America’s f...
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
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the exercise of an individual’s freedom of speech from infringement by government; the Fourteenth Amendment extends this protection to the States and local levels of government, including public schools and universities. The Supreme Court has held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Tinker). School officials have the authority to censor school-sponsored speech based on legitimate pedagogical concerns. The dean of students has not censored any editorials yet, but required that they be cleared by her before publication. The main issue in this case is whether there exists a legitimate reason on her part to require the clearance of every editorial. Additionally, the dean of students has warned against a planned rally to protest lavish spending. This protest is not school-sponsored speech, but student speech that occurs in school premises. In Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Sch. Dist., the Supreme Court ruled that speech must be tolerated unless it “substantially interfere[s] with the work of the school or impinge[s] upon the rights of other students.” Here the question is on the justification of the school to use disciplinary action against protesting students.
...eges were to abide by the first amendment of the Constitution, they would discover the different pitches and tones that accompany each voice. Instead, some colleges put a ban on what students say or wear. We are no longer in the age of McCarthyism where every aspect of society needs to be censored. Donna Shalala, owner of a Presidential Medal of Freedom, once said " You can't have a university without having free speech, even though at times it makes us terribly uncomfortable. If students are not going to hear controversial ideas on college campuses, they're not going to hear them in America. I believe it's part of their education". I agree with Ms. Shalala, America is a country built on strong principles like individualism. Free speech constitutes individualism. Free speech is a right; not a privilege and colleges have no right to restrict the power of thought.
Light, J. R. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.