Over the past several years, college campuses across the country are seeing an increase in student led protests due to issues of racial conflict. Much like the late 1960s, national issues of racial inequality have reached a boiling point and prompted our country’s youth to take action. Many students’ aim, through the action of protests, sit-ins, hunger strikes, and demands to change campus and staff infrastructure, is to create a safe space for all races to feel at home at their university. As is often the case with actions like these, the definition of free speech or the First Amendment is questioned; the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” With a wide variety of peoples involved, many different viewpoints must be analyzed to better understand the issues involving …show more content…
Students at Amherst College submitted their demands to administrators requesting that they rewrite the school’s honor code to include a zero-tolerance policy for any racially insensitive acts. While this may seem like a beneficial policy for keeping people of all races safe from hate speech, it would also greatly limit one’s right to free speech on campus. These types of debates are not limited to one campus. Arguments over hate speech policies can also be heard at Columbia University where student and faculty opinions vary greatly over the zero tolerance policy. University of Maryland students go as far as demanding that hate speech be considered cult activity. Incidents following president Trumps election even caused 47 Boston College faculty members to sign a petition requesting a zero tolerance policy be
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.
With a wide variety of people on colleges campuses, it is almost impossible to please everybody; whether it comes to class times, bus schedules, or grading rules, somebody is upset. As well as these smaller issues, more controversial arguments come into play. One of these arguments is against free speech zones on college campuses. These zones restrict speech to a specific area on campus, however, still allowing any type of group to express their beliefs to anybody passing. Some claim these zones as unconstitutional because it restricts a student’s right to free speech. However, others view the zones as helpful in controlling protests and current tensions on campus. Open speech across campus is incredibly difficult to monitor because of the enormous size of current day campuses and the immense amount of different views. In the past, there have been situations relating to violent protesting and negative speech across campuses. Because of this, campuses have begun enforcing free speech zones in which students and faculty may verbally express their beliefs.
Charles R. Lawrence III, a law professor at Georgetown University, released an article named “On Racist Speech” against the growing frequency of racial violence, especially in University campuses in the U.S., to the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1989. Lawrence begins his article by focusing on the message that hate speech “sends a destructive message to minorities that they are inferior.” The author brings up many other examples to support his message such as the court case Brown vs the Board of Education, instances of racist posters and fliers in college dormitories, and protesting against a “fighting words exemption.” Lawrence argues that although it is difficult for the government to write a law that will prevent racist speech without
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 order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and
“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
Lawrence sheds light upon the very turbulent issue of the First Amendment right to the Freedom of speech in contrast to the inequality caused by its misuse through racially bias speech. The author states that the University officials should endorse some sort policy that will protect the rights of those who are victimized by this “racial nuisance,” while at the same time not censoring our constitutional right of free speech, “I am troubled by the way the debates has been framed in response to the recent surge of racist incidents on college and university campuses and in response universities attempts to regulate harassing speech” (Lawrence,65). Continually, Lawrence defines the set of ideals that the First Amendment was based on, particularly; equality. He goes on to show the audience that this very balance is
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
This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a
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 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
At colleges around the U.S, protesting is a major act. Students have taken protesting to a whole new level, and are intimidating faculty into silence. They are taking advantage of their rights and are abusing their freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech does not include the right to steal others of their expression.
Freedom of Speech in institutions of higher learning The society has among many rights, the freedom of speech and expression. Everyone has a right to express their feelings through speech but there is a limit as to how far one can go. There have been elaborate measures put in place to ensure that the freedom of speech is not abused to such extremes as hate speech, incitement and defamation. Among the society, college students are deemed more vocal about freedom of speech, college student’s and college administrators have been found to be more sensitive on freedom of speech than other sections of the society.
The idea of human rights has been altered and been highly debated in the United States. Often our citizens, and even our own representatives, are stuck arguing over hot-button topics such as new gun control laws, access to universal healthcare in poverty-stricken communities, and even free speech, especially that of a controversial nature. The ambiguity of what our founding fathers believed our inalienable human rights as citizens under the United States constitution should be today is closely tied with the structure and disparities between social class lines. Currently, our government places more focus on the lower side of the socioeconomic class structure. Just recently, free speech on college campuses has become a hot topic of debate, sparking the political turmoil of maintaining free speech as a right for all citizens, and perhaps even pushing through new precautions to protect it.
“Do you know where here is? Here is the ELI, if you want to speak Chinese, please go out.” Can you think of Mr. Cranker and the English Only Policy while seeing these kinds of sentences? He always uses a gentle intonation to say these words and repeats them thousands of times with endless patience day by day in the hall. Actually, speaking English in the ELI is non-negotiable and responsible; furthermore, this policy enables students to learn English more effectively and efficiently regardless of subduing foreign students’ freedom of speech. This Policy is a great paradigm of overturning the freedom of speech somewhat; moreover, society cannot be regulated with one hundred percent freedom until the world can become safe and sound