Argumentative Essay On No Platforming

As American universities and colleges grow their demographics, diversity and ideas there is a continued and an accelerated debate regarding freedom of speech within these higher education institutions. College campuses are struggling to simultaneously provide a learning environment that is inclusive to traditionally unrepresented students while also providing an environment that allows for ideas to be challenged and debated no matter how offensive or controversial.

Colleges and universities are places of higher education and learning. Part of this learning comes from listening and understanding opposite views from your own. Positively, these zones have allowed students to avoid any ideas they may not want to hear; however, avoidance is not the way around life. Another positive outcome of free speech on campuses is that students are able to bind together

Despite their opinions, free speech was a great way in this situation for students to rally together and publically inform the rest of campus of their beliefs. In the school newspaper, The Daily Emerald, CJ Ciaramelle wrote “About 300 students from across the campus community — student unions, Greek Life, the ASUO, the Survival Center, the Women’s Center — showed up at the meeting to protest the Forum” (1). Although the majority of people protested against the forum the right to free speech, it is important because it allows students to make decisions on their own and invite students to do the same.

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.

“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

“A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense” (Lukianoff and Haidt 44). Colleges are sheltering their students from words and ideas that students do not like or are found to be offensive. Affecting their education and cognitive skills, scientists are warning colleges to refrain from coddling the students and allowing other viewpoints to be spoken. People are speaking their minds, saying their own views; however, some people are over sensitive and take these viewpoints offensively. In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt successfully argues using rhetorical questions, specific examples, and affective visuals that protecting college students from words and ideas deteriorates their education and mental health.

Authors of both articles disagree the suppressing and censoring of free speech observed in some universities. While Rampell is disheartened by violent reactions of students upon reading a conservative essay written by a ‘moderate conservative’ in a student newspaper, Stone and Creeley are worried, in general, about the broader measures of censoring free speech across universities. Rampell, in particular, had direct access to the writer of the conservative essay, which gave her a deeper understanding of the actual reactions and subsequent happenings. Stone and Creeley had off hand access to the past happenings of three individual cases of censoring free speech expressions by teaching faculties. In one case, a university dissented to a faculty member’s published essay on

“Over the years, courts have ruled that college officials may set up reasonable rules to regulate the ‘time, place and manner” that the free speech can occur, as long as the rules are “content neutral,’ meaning they apply equally to all sides of issues” (Fisher, 2008). Speech codes and free speech zones on campus do exist for many reasons: many of the causes or topics that students or others looking to interact with students take up are controversial and can frequently take on less of an academic or social justice overtone and more of a hateful one. Hate speech is the greatest threat to freedom of speech on college campuses, and the limitations colleges and universities put on student’s verbal freedoms are largely in place as efforts to avoid it. Religion, in particular, is a hot topic on campuses and it has an unfortunate tendency to become more aggressive and argumentative than universities would like. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object.

Free speech on college campuses has been a widely debated topic in recent years. Because of this, the opinions held on this subject vary. In the editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses”, the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune defends the idea of education and free speech. The Editorial Board states that students today are not receiving as useful of an education because of the barriers put on free speech. In addition, they argue that in not allowing students to feel uncomfortable, they are not receiving a true education. [A little more summary here would be helpful—how does the author support these claims?] The editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses,” introduces a valid logical argument on education through describing instances in which students experience uncomfortable learning situations, and the ways in which they were handled. [Hannah, your reasons here are about content, not about rhetoric—what rhetorical reasons is the argument strong?]

Universities that have been trying to quash free speech have encountered some court reversals of their attempts. But campus leftists have not given up. The newest university gambit to limit speech mirrors the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines concerning sexual harassment in the workplace, (creating a hostile environment) or they attempt to base their speech code on the "fighting words" doctrine enunciated by the Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

The freedom of speech has never been free to everyone. Many Americans grow up with this saying and feel it to be true. Suzanne Nossel wrote her article “How we communicate is changing. So should the way we think about free speech”, published in August of 2017 in The Washington Post, and she argues that “students who seek to shut down speech that offends - through calls to disinvite speakers, punish offensive remarks or shout down opponents - have been dismissed as coddled, unenlightened, entitled, anti-intellectual, dogmatic and infantile.” (Nossel, 2017, p. 1). Nossel builds her credibility with facts and reputable sources, citing convincing facts and statistics, and successfully employing emotional appeals.

Derek Bok argues that American dedication to democracy is embodied in the Frist Amendment and that the freedoms granted in this Amendment are the building blocks of dialogues that contribute to cohesive communities born out of differences. The problem, however, according to Bok, is the difficulty of balancing the protection of these freedoms on campuses and universities where reasoned expression of diverse ideas is encouraged. Bok offers the suggestion that rather than attempt to stifle expression by imposing penalties for what might be considered offensive speech, “speak with those who perform insensitive acts and try to help them understand the effects of their action on others” (69). While this suggestion might imply a reasoned and

All around the country, colleges and universities are increasingly punishing or censoring students who engage in offensive speech. Concerns indicate that a failure to act will lead to liability under federal anti-discrimination law. In many instances, the possibility of liability is weak or non-existent. “Except in the most extreme circumstances, schools are not required to expel students for their speech in order to avoid liability.” Instead, schools are punishing students for their demonstrations of free speech if it opposes the “safe space” and inclusive environment that colleges and Universities have been trying to promote. (Papandrea)

The Washington Times published an article in March titled “Emory students ‘in pain’ from pro-Trump chalking on campus, protest school administrations.” The essence of this article can surmised quite effectively from the title, but one student’s complaints can most effectively indicate the greatest threat to education today. “I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe…But this man is being supported by students on our campus, and our administration shows that they, by their silence, support it as well … I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school.” Our young countryman here has made it clear that he is incapable of merely tolerating someone else’s thoughts and beliefs. The articulated thoughts and opinions of another student are apparently too