How Liberals Are Ruining College

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

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible. However, in recent years, the right to free speech is one of legal and moral ambiguity-What separates offensive free speech from dangerous or threatening (and presumably illegal) hate speech? Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, every American citizen should be entitled to the right of free expression, thought, and speech. While free speech, including racial, sexist, or otherwise prejudiced remarks, must protected no matter

In her article “Progressive Ideas Have Killed Free Speech on Campus” Wendy Kaminer, an American lawyer and writer, was branded a racist while having a friendly debate during a panel for Smith College. Kaminer made a reasonable case by providing many examples from a different variety of colleges who have experienced a free speech debate. She also stated: “How did a verbal defense of free speech become tantamount to a hate crime and offensive words become the equivalent of physical assaults?” I couldn’t agree with Kaminer more. People need to toughen up and not take things so literally.  Offensive words are not equivalent to physical assaults.

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.

In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.

People have the right to say whatever they want and hate certain types of groups, it is totally their opinion and the others have to respect that fact; the problem becomes when one act upon those things . “In our country, acts — assault, battery, vandalism, arson, murder, lynchings, physical harassment — are punishable under our court system. But words — like nigger — or symbols — such as Nazi swastikas or burning crosses -- are protected by the courts as acts of individual expression.” (National Center for Human Rights Education). There is the recent example of Dylan Roof, a 20 years young man that started shooting in an African-American church killing 9 people including the pastor. It is depressing see how people can define another person and treat it like it has no value, when God made us all the same, and when we all have the same opportunity no matter our race, there is no color to be successful in life. It seems like freedom of speech is giving one the right to offend each other without suffer consequences because one have “ the right to express thoughts”, without think the emotional damage that can be caused to the other person. Arguments can easily provoke a fight, and a fight can provoke jail or even worst death, the first amendment should be limited

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)

Too often conversations are taken as harmful hate speech that needs to be censored. Although a large amount of things that people find offensive are completely unnecessary we can’t go censoring it to make the problem go away. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you want to say but it does mean that you have the right to say most things, and most times speech cannot be censored no matter how appalling it is. Sometimes speech needs to be censored, but there is a big difference between illegal and legal speech that we need to make sure we know.

Words can build or break an individual. Growing up I was taught to keep any harmful comments to myself, nevertheless many individuals seem to have no regard of what others think or how their words can harm them. Through words Martin Luther King was able to stand up against segregation. Through words Abraham Lincoln was able to unite the nation after the civil war. Words are a powerful weapon and if used unjustly, it can be the downfall of someone or a nation. We have no right to libel, slander, or harm one another, yet when one does they say they were “voicing their opinions.” It is sad to see individuals “protesting” by breaking businesses windows, trashing the streets, harming police officers and harming other citizens. How is this voicing their opinion? Why shall one trash the streets of our nation, our home, and declare it’s freedom of speech. Like it or not we must understand that police officers and citizens who don’t see our view on things also have the right to voice their opinion. Our nation came together because of our differences; however, we gladly push someone down who doesn’t have the same mindset as

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

In light of the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo Headquarters in early 2015, the topic of free speech seemed to regalvanize. This conversation will only pick up more momentum and fully convicted sentiments with the rise of social movements like the Black Lives Matter and Social Justice Warrior movements. Edward Morrisey writes his article, The Coming Demise of Free Speech in America, to share information regarding the first amendment, respective court cases, and the results of an implementation of a hypothetical ‘hate speech’ law.

The use of trigger warnings and avoidance of microagressions has already been showcased at many prominent institutions of higher learning. It has been seen not only in the form of students protesting, but in some cases in administrations adopting policies and demanding professors to avoid certain topics for the sake of accommodating the psyche of students who anticipate being offended. Haidt and Lukianoff provide the example of the University of California, where professors were given lists of microaggressions, including statements such as “‘America is the land of opportunity’ and ‘I believe the most qualified person should get the job’” (Haidt/Lukianoff 3). Microaggressions have made the jump from recognizing someone’s ignorance, or even a simple error in word-choice to reporting and reprimanding the “aggressor”. One notable instance of a microaggression reporting system is from Ithaca College. According to Noreyana Fernando in an article for The Ithaca Voice, the college is implementing an online system by which students can report and publish instances by which they feel victimized by a microaggression. In this system, the person responsible for the offense will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and a punishment may be determined by representative students or administrators (Fernando 1). While the fact each case will be handled individually is a good thing, the fact that microaggressions will be publicly reported in the first place and need to be resolved officially is

Hate speech is often misunderstood because it can be classified as either careless or intentionally hurtful. Many people interpret careless statements as acts of aggression, but with good reason. It would be false to say that the freedom of speech has never been manipulated to inflict damage upon others. Questions have been risen of what hate speech is and if it should be allowed to be viewed by public access. Alan M. Dershowitz delivers an enumerative definition of the term by asserting all speech that criticizes another’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity, appearance, class, physical or mental capabilities, or sexual preference. However simply defining hate speech by listing out its various forms only amplifies its definition, but it fails to clarify. Vicki Chiang manages to provide a more analytical understanding of the term by listing the various forms of the act and addressing the effects upon all involved. Dershowitz’s list of hurtful instances of hate speech conveys a definition of the term as a whole, but does not cover all forms hate speech. Hate speech is any action that conveys a critical perception of an opinion which criticizes a group in a harmful manner. By addressing all forms of hate speech and considering all involved it can be concluded that though such media is often viewed as offensive, it should not be censored by a legislative body that advocates freedom of speech. In a library, one should be allowed access to the records of the past in order to

We are to exercise our freedom of speech gently, with tact, in full awareness of the discomfort it might cause those around us. Too often discussion itself is lost in our desperate quest not to “offend”. We don’t know how to communicate anymore. Anytime anyone speaks out against homosexuality, or speaks up about race issues people lose it. They’re stereotyped, filed away and ignored; no one tries to think of a comeback argument.

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also