Analysis Of Jeannie Suk 's Article For The New Yorker

Erwin Chemerinsky describes the main opposing views on this issue in his book Free Speech on Campus, “One derides all efforts to protect students from the effects of offensive or disrespectful speech as “coddling” and “politically correctness.” The other side

In the article “Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Free Speech, too” published in the New York Times by Sophie Downes, Downes argues in response to a letter sent out by the dean of the University of Chicago. The letter states that safe spaces and trigger warnings were an issue deterring students from having free speech and therefore would not be supported on the Chicago campus anymore. Downes argues that the letter was just a poor attempt to advert attention away from the real issues on the campus—ones that the dean will not meet with student council about and will not talk about at all. Sophie Downes argues that safe spaces and trigger warnings actually encourage free space and enhance support and community—two values that the dean said were deterred by the existence of them.

In Lukianoff and Haidt’s essay, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” the authors contend today’s college students want to be protected from any words that might harm them. The authors argue doing so harms them in other ways.

Although the First Amendment states that we should award the greatest amount of speech, racial speech is not deserving of this award because these words are meant to do nothing but harm another individual. The only time that speech may be regulated is when the victim is unable to get away from the racism such as in the home or in college bathrooms and common rooms. Lawrence feels that it is the responsibility of the university to protect the student to the fullest extent, and it is the right of the student to be able to walk around campus without being harassed. Although universities have attempted to make rules that ban the use of words as weapons to intentionally

“Free Inquiry? Not on Campus” by John Leo is an important essay that shows exactly how important it is to protect people's political views and opinions. In Leo's essay, he elaborates how times have changed and how we live in more of a liberal left-wing society and because of this everyone has to be more politically correct. Leo talks about the social change universities and colleges on how they used to promote free speech, but now are more like the speech police telling us what's opinions you should have on any given subject and any other opinion is considered wrong. Leo gives an example of this and writes “in October 2007, for instance, a student mob stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down speeches by two members of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration group.The students shouted they have no right to

Former president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, in his essay, “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” published in the Boston Globe, addresses the topic of protection and regulation of freedom of expression on college campuses and argues that rather than prohibiting the expression of offensive speech, it would be better to ignore it. He fails to support his claim by dismissing the emotional discomfort that people might find themselves in, in response to someone’s offensive expressions, and by not being a credible source of information on the topic, but he successfully appeals to the reader by offering logical reasons as to why

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

Freedom of speech is a fundamental American freedom and a human right, and there’s no place that this right should be more valued and protected than in colleges and universities. A college exists to educate and to advance a student 's knowledge. Colleges do so by acting as a “marketplace of ideas” where ideas compete. It is important to be able to compare your ideas with everyone else as it helps to open your mind to other people’s views and can give you a different perception on things. In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukiankoff talked about how too many college students engage in “catastrophizing," which is in short, the overreaction to something. They also said that “smart people do, in fact, overreact to innocuous speech, make mountains out of molehills, and seek punishment for anyone whose words make anyone else feel uncomfortable.”(Haidt) Many colleges have the belief that prohibiting freedom of speech will resolve such issues. But instead, colleges should take a different approach on the matter by teaching students how to properly utilize their Freedom of Speech which will help to resolve future conflicts and misunderstandings.

Throughout the past few years people have started to become more cautious of what they say and do in public because everyone reacts differently to all kinds of things and it is not hard to offend someone. In the essay “Coddling of the American Mind” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, they discuss the rise of microaggression, which fosters a culture where young adults are sheltered from concepts that give offense. They focus on the idea of removing offensive words, ideas, and subjects from college campuses because they believe it is disastrous to protect the words and ideas that may cause “microaggression” from college students. In order to persuade the readers that colleges are distorting and coddling the minds of their students, Lukianoff and Haidt use modes of persuasion, examples, and definitions.

In Greg Lukianoff and Jonathon Haidt’s “The Coddling of the American Mind” issued in 2015 in The Atlantic, they claim that the new wave of “vindictive protectiveness” is infantilizing college students, as certain words, subjects, and ideas are being deemed as offensive. Lukianoff and Haidt assert that if universities continually shield students from these distressing topics, students will leave universities “thin-skinned” thinking pathologically and unprepared for the workforce.

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion regarding free speech on college campuses. Our first amendment gives us the right of Free Speech but many groups retain the ability to censor it within their own organisation, such as in the workplace and in both public and private lower education. I believe that the ability should be extended to colleges and universities (both public and private). Students should have the right to be at school while feeling physically safe. An example of this right being violated because of someone else’s “free speech” was last spring at American University in which bananas were strung up on nooses around campus with AKA (a historically-black sorority) labeled on them the day after AU’s first black female student

“The Coddling of the American Mind” refers to being aware of the over protectiveness of a college student's mind, which in turn is consequently hurting themselves and society.

Recently, we have seen increased violence and tension on college campuses and even violent protests against conservatives like Ben Shapiro from speaking on highly liberal college campuses such as UCLA and University of California, Berkeley. Some universities have even adopted speech codes to stop students from “uttering sexist and racist slurs” (Kakutani). While this might seem like a noble cause, speech codes only do more harm as they attempt to silence certain views even if they are in no way promoting violence of evil in any way. While it might be understandable to ban certain slurs like “nigger” in certain private universities, some educators have gone to far. According to a brochure distributed to elementary teachers in Ontario, educators were instructed to no longer use phrases like “it’s an uphill battle” because they might offend someone and/or promote violence (North York Women Teachers’ Association). Such limitations of expression are dangerous to the right of freedom of speech given to all of us by God. We must do everything in our power to promote equality and opportunity for all, while silencing or name calling the views of

Often times, students cannot recognize the line between free speech and hateful speaking because it is blurred for them. They have long been taught that free speech is our born right, tride and true. However, some students take it too far with their words. When this is brought up, many students bring it up as their opinion, or use the free speech card. Many people are worried that students will lose their right to free speech if their expression is restricted. However, to make schools a better environment things need to change. Student expression should be restricted in language and body language, in clothing, and on the internet.

Have you imaged yourself studying in a college requiring a pre-warning at the beginning of a statement or material to alert that it may contain some sensitive contents making you uncomfortable? Have you believed that your college is striving to create a safe space to protect you from words you do not like while you are preparing to face the unforeseeable challenges of the workplace? Our society is moving forward; however, our college education seems to move backward. The new generation born after the 80’s is overprotected by their parents, seemingly making them become vulnerable to the criticism from the surroundings. Like the parents, many colleges decide to limit free speech to create a place “protecting students from hurt feelings” (Stack). Just as Lukianoff and Haidt explain in the debate, it is necessary to shield students from statements causing them emotional and psychological harm on campus. It means that turning “campuses into ‘safe spaces’ where young adults are shielded from sensitive words and ideas,” and “creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse,” according to Lukianoff and Haidt. Ultimately, in the name of making students feel comfortable and safe on campuses, restrictions on speech make students unable to have a free conversation because being afraid of the lawsuit, deal with anything harmful and offensive to their beliefs,