In her op-ed, "In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas", Shulevitz discusses the idea behind freedom of speech on college campuses and how safe spaces are snuffing it out. Shulevitz uses multiple examples of problems that have arisen because of safe spaces at universities such as Brown University, Columbia University, and Oxford 's University 's Christ Church college. Debate cancellations, essay opinions that caused protest, and other situations involving freedom of speech that Shulevitz uses to back up her opinion that safe spaces are nothing but harm to college campuses. According to Shulevitz Op-ed, safe spaces are nothing but an incubator that grows a festering amount of weak individuals who are destroying their social skills and developing …show more content…
In Roxane Gay 's op-ed, "The Seduction of Safety, on Campus and Beyond", she states, "Rather than use trigger warnings, I try to provide students with the context they will need to engage productively in complicated discussions", and this is exactly what I am talking about. People who understand that freedom of speech does not have to be taken away in order to stop "triggering" people. Communication is key and freedom of speech is our given right that allows us to communicate our thoughts and feelings. When I searched, "safe spaces in universities" on google, all I could find was article after article of people criticizing safe spaces and giving reasons why they should not happen on college campuses. The most used reason, was a reason that Shulevitz used as well, that safe spaces create ignorance in the growing teenager and become problematic. While this may be true, I feel I should of found more articles like Gay 's, emphasizing with victims and understanding the need for safety sometimes, but without ignorance. The world is scary, hurtful, and breaks you as you grow older. Safe spaces are needed for comfort, they can bring peace, and give someone a person who understands. It 's wrong to put college students behind a door and shut them in so they are not "triggered" by someone 's opinion, but it 's also wrong to not acknowledge that sometimes, people just need to take a break from all the speech in the world and re-cope themselves to
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
In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind” the authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt express that college campuses in America are dealing with emotional discomfort every day. They point out whether we are too emotional on certain topics in our lives or we need to change something on college campuses to have students feel more comfortable. College student have experienced a lot in life so I think that campuses should help college students through traumatic experiences in their past instead of not acknowledging certain topics and banning them to discuss in class like rape and domestic violence which happens in our everyday life. Colleges need to step up and talk about these things so students can feel more comfortable.
Teachers become afraid to challenges students values and beliefs, also creating a repressive area for debates. The article “On Trigger Warnings” by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) states that “the presumption that need to be protected rather than challenged in a classroom is at once infantilizing and anti-intellectual”. Demanding trigger warnings make comfort more of a priority than learning. Faculty may feel like they need to warn students about the course material because some students might find it disconcerting, but the voluntary use of trigger warnings on syllabus could be counterproductive. Just because some material may cause one person to have trauma does not mean everyone will and by putting a trigger warning on the syllabus might cause others to expect something upsetting. This could cause students to not read assignments or it might provoke a response from students they otherwise would not have had. Trigger warnings also signal an expected response and discourage the reading experience and even eliminate spontaneity. Trigger warnings make students into victims and makes both teachers and students fearful to ask questions because it might make someone uncomfortable. The goal is to educate and challenge students, make students question things and debate on things that they normally do not think about. AAUP also says that “the call for trigger warnings comes
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
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,
It is probable that the administration in taking away the student’s political frontline were only aiming to subdue the civil rights movement. However the effect of banning everyone from speaking their mind had an effect unforeseen by those in charge. Students from all backgrounds and schools of political thought were united; students that under any other circumstance never would have come together. This is what made the free-speech movement unique; it was a merger of forces across the political front, only possible because the matters at stake transcended political orientation.
Wheeler, David R. "Do Students Still Have Free Speech in School?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 07 Apr. 2014. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.
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.
The Free Speech Movement was a college campus phenomenon inspired first by the struggle for civil rights and later fueled by opposition to the Vietnam War. (The Free Speech Movement) The Free Speech Movement sparked an unprecedented wave of student activism and involvement, one of such a great multitude that the college administration had no idea what to do with this entire activist, fighting and protesting for the same cause. (The Free Speech Movement.) With the administration not knowing what to do they banned all on campus political activities, out of fear that something bad was going to happen. (The Free Speech Movement) With this ban on political activities on campus a alumni of Berkeley set up a table right in the center of campus proper, with political information. (The Free Speech Movement) An Oakland Tribune reporter found out that this political activity was taking place on the campus proper; when word reached the camp...
College campuses have always been the sites where students can express their opinions without fear. There have been many debates about the merits of allowing free speech on campus. Some students and faculties support allowing free speech on campus, while others believe that colleges should restrict free speech to make the college’s environment safer for every student. Free speeches are endangered on college campuses because of trigger warning, increasing policing of free speech, and the hypersensitivity of college students.
Another new idea that has surfaced which as potential to be harmful for personal growth, especially at this age, is the creation “safe places” being implemented across many college campuses. Like trigger warnings, there are certain situations that may call for a “safe place,” but as the President of the University of Oklahoma points out, college “…is not a 'safe place, ' but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others.” (Stump) In other words, we are limiting this generation negatively by not allowing them to be exposed to other opinions other than their own. By making colleges “safe places,” it ultimately infers that the working world is a “safe place,” which could be very misleading
Studies from universities such as UCLA, show, “ emotional harm is the equal intensity to that experienced by the body, and even long-lasting and traumatic.” ( Rosenbaum, 173) a university like to claim their reasoning to limit free speech on campus is to protect students them physically and emotionally by essentially limited their first amendment rights. That is not from of protection limiting students rights is not a long term solution. It is true that freedom of speech unconditionally is taking for granted when slander is direct to aggressively attacking someone which might lead to physical harm. It is a good thing that campuses and employers take action to prevent such events from happing. But at the cost of limiting the first amendment right is not the way to go. Most employees working in the private sector generally have no right to free speech, for those who break company policy can deal with disciplinary consequences and lost their job which is why most do not choose to fight against not have their first amendment right exercised. In 2010 a student by the name of Amanda Tatro poses a very controversial blog on social media facebook when the school found out about it. They took immediate action, amends “ criminal investigation concluded that Tatro had no intent to harm anyone, but the university imposed disciplinary charges anyway, including a failing grade and mandatory psychiatric exam.” ( LoMonte) even though Amanda was not on campus physically nor did she target any special person emotionally or physically, the campus power over limiting her right to free speech resulted in bad consequences for her actions which led to no harm. This is not right, an American citizen got in trouble for expression their first ardent right setting right at home causing no harm to no one. It is true slander
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
Answer: Certainly, safety is a major concern when it comes to every student. However, there comes a time when we are put in situations that are unavoidable due to extreme behavior. Cases like this one have allowed us to document, and therefore show proof, that inclusion is not in the best interest of a student, for their safety, and the safety of those they are in class with. When dealing with parents who want full inclusion and do not want to hear reasons why inclusion may not work, cases like Light v. Parkway have given the district the ability to “overrule” those
One instance of free speech controversy was when a fraternity member of the University Of Maryland had an email leaked of which he said very derogatory and racist remarks about women and shaming them on their appearance. When this email was leaked it created a widespread of controversy and anger among the country. The difficult part in this was that by popular opinion many would want to expel the student who wrote that email but lawyers suggest that by doing so would violate the student 's constitutional rights to freedom of expression. The problem with labeling this kind of behavior as hate speech and trying to suppress vulgar language is no matter how vile the language is it is protected under the first amendment of the constitution. Universities have come together in trying to diffuse this kind of behavior by adding codes of conduct that prohibit certain forms of speech from being permitted on campus. These initiatives have been challenged by civil liberty groups who feel that by prohibiting certain forms of speech the universities are restricting students on their first amendment rights and has to be cautious on what they say as one minor joke could be taken the wrong