Freedom Of Speech Movement

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.

Many colleges have enacted speech codes in which students are governed in what they say so that they don’t offend their peers. However, according to an expert by Lukianoff and Haidt, “ It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking...Don't teach students what to think; teach them how to think.” Students must learn to stand up for themselves. Nevertheless college campuses are a place for learning, students should be able to hear criticism, take criticism and learn how to deal with it in a peaceful way. In workplaces, in society and in rooms where hate speech is being used, students should be able to stand by what they believe in and fight for their claim with confidence. Lukianoff and Haidt point out that “Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control.” Again, offenses will be thrown out there all around you, you just have to learn how to deal with it. But where do you draw the line and say enough is

College is a time when most individuals are experiencing major changes and begin to explore new perspectives. The transition in becoming more independent, creating new insights and peer influence are key factors in changing the perspective of an individual. Students are faced with new ideas from their professors, family and fellow peers. Through that acquired knowledge many students decide that they either agree or disagree with the perspectives that they are taught. Allowing the right of ‘Free Speech’ on public college campuses has become an important issue that many public colleges are starting to address. In college students are capable of

“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

“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.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of “free speech zones” has made its way to colleges everywhere. A “free speech zone” is a sidewalk sized place where students are allowed to speak their minds freely on college campuses. I know what you’re thinking. This sounds ridiculous. Why are there specific places for people to speak their minds? Aren’t colleges suppose to be a place where students speak their minds and learn new things? Universities should not be able to put any restrictions on free speech.

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.

In the past couple of decades till now, there have been countless numbers of hate speech cases on college campuses across the country. Due to hate speech taking on many forms such as written, spoken, and symbolic, the number of incidents have skyrocketed. While many colleges have attempted to regulate hate speech on campus, other colleges have found that they have limited too much speech and that their regulations are starting to go against the first amendment. Three incidents of hate speech on college campuses in the years 1993-1995 occurred in the college campuses of Penn, UCR, and Caltech respectively.

The Federal Government should restrict hate speech on all college campuses. This is due to a variety of reasons. Under the first point of analysis, one can observe that hate speech codes have a tendency to foster a more tolerant environment by teaching a difference between right and wrong (Sommers 1). Often times, college students do not realize the impact that their words may have on others (2). The problem is rarely identified in primary and secondary schools, and it worsens as the students approach the college level (1).

In his essay, “The Campus: An Island of Repression in a Sea of Freedom”, Chester Finn details the growing movement for political correctness at the collegiate level. He quotes the regents of Massachusetts, “There must be unity and cohesion in the diversity which we seek to achieve, thereby creating an atmosphere of pluralism” (Finn 58). However, that pluralism does not parallel the First Amendment. In this situation, the issue is not freedom of expression, but the steps taken to limit it. An article written by Maegan Vazquez for Fox News details a stipulation to the speech code at Indiana University Southeast. The code states that students are restricted to expressing their opinions in “free speech” zones. However, Robert Shibley, Senior Vice President for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, fires back “It's not just Indiana University Southeast. Colorado College, in Colorado Springs, prohibits ‘any act of ridicule...or embarrassment,’ and Northeastern University, in Boston, prohibits the use of university computer resources to transmit or make accessible material, which in the sole judgment of the University is offensive." He sums up the damage that this situation is causing with his final statement. “You're teaching [college students] that they're not equipped to live in a free society” (Vazquez). Therefore, those parents who worry about the indoctrination of their college-age children are justified in that fear as this problem is widespread and

College is the time for self-discovery, greater knowledge, and the formation of ideas and opinions. However, when looking at public institutions today, that ideal college experience is just a dream for many students because the restriction of speech lessens the opportunity for them to discover themselves and what they believe. Public universities are institutions of the state, and therefore must play by the same rules, including the First Amendment right of freedom of speech, as all other government run-institutions. Unfortunately, over the years, public administrators have slowly been restricting the speech of students, faculty, speakers, etc. through speech codes, college policies and many more methods. As said by Robert Zimmer, president of UChicago, these actions lead to an education “...that fails to prepare students for the challenge of different ideas and the evaluation of their own assumptions[, and creates] a world in which their feelings take precedence over other matters that need to be confronted” (Stephens). Limiting free speech on campuses has created overly sheltered environments for students, impairing their voice and creating a dysfunctional speech culture for our democracy in the current and coming generations.

While not everyone in society has to be a constitutional expert, college students today are tomorrow’s future lawyers, judges, police officers, etc. They need to at least know the extent of the first amendment in the United States. Additionally, these students should know that since hate speech is protected, responding with violence is by no means the answer as they will be the only ones to find themselves in jail. These students must lower their fists, and pull out the textbooks and construct the picket signs, using vigorous debate and peaceful protests as their response to bigotry.

This book goes into depth about the Berkeley Free speech movement. It analyzes and conveys several memories of the FSM. This book is made up of several scholarly articles and personal memoir. The authors reexamine the free speech movement and the impact it made on the 1960s social change. While providing a look back through personal accounts(such as students, faculty members and individuals of where impacted the crisis) and political analyses of the freedom speech movement.

Colleges across the country have implemented free speech codes in their campuses knowing it violates the first amendment right. They go as far as quarantining the students to a free speech zone as if the student’s opinion or point of view is an infectious deadly virus. Standing in the free speech zone singles you out and allows other students to see you as a target allowing them to label you as a racist, homophobe, or any other derogatory label they can come up with. Some learning institutions have also created safe spaces to further restrict student’s first amendment rights while protecting other student’s emotions. This creates sensitivity based censorship where anything that seems hateful or hurtful gets ban, so this closed-minded attitude

Moreover, although the number of sources discrimi-nating the students have dropped dramatically, yet FIRE still sees many Universities exhausting nu-merous students regarding their way of expression of the words and sentences, which by the way are sometimes self-defending. Thus, the FIRE article explains thoroughly “It is essential that students, fac-ulty, and free speech advocates remain vigilant not only about campus speech codes but also about the way universities may—even in the absence of a policy that is unconstitutional as written—silence or punish protected speech.”(Spotlight on Speech Codes; 1) trusting the fact that many students might feel differentiated, and having their rights and privileges discriminated. This quote not only explains the topic of the protected speech, but also flourishes the author’s tone which could be mostly described as