Obedience, Disobedience And College

[A student] may express his [or her] opinions, even on controversial subjects…if he [or she] does so without materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and without colliding with the rights of others. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason – whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior – materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional

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

This includes prohibitions against assault and theft or respect for leaders (Source G). Given that students are at an age where they are extremely moldable, it is imperative that they learn these rules in school.

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.

It was important to use my sociological imagination to make these familiar actions seem strange and foreign. A trend in all of the norms is that, for the most part, people follow the norms because they do not want to face the negative sanctions or have attention drawn to them. The purpose of the negative sanctions is to discourage you from engaging in the same deviant behavior. We only know we did something “wrong” when we receive negative sanctions. On the other hand, positive sanctions are meant to encourage the acceptable behavior. It was interesting to see how students in the dining hall did not question the unspoken rules that everyone followed. All students and employees blindly followed the norms because that is what they are used to. If they engaged their sociological imagination to look at social norms from a different perspective, they would be able to see how much of our life is influenced by them. We adhere to the norms society has set without even realizing or questioning it.

The future working men and women who enter college are adults and will be treated as such. An adult is one who has matured to know what is right and what is wrong. The importance of a rule is a line between right and wrong that many places including colleges have as a guiding tool. College students who enter are expected to follow rules as the rules are meant to protect us and set a guideline. Adults also know how to be self-sufficient, being able to do their work, without anyone’s help or stealing someone else’s work: plagiarism. College is where we are expected to perform to the best of our abilities because as students we have a fierce ambition to get ahead by earning a degree.

Well the reason students have so much rights is because of the law that were made to give students rights and have then know they're safe. Now you can wear what you want as long is it offensive in anyway. Students can be expelled with without being able to have a trial or hearing. Lat lastly students cannot be searched unless there is a case to

Often students take high school for granted; consequently it shows when they reach college. For example, in high school, teachers may accept late work, tardiness, and continuous inappropriate behavior. The college classes that they will have to face will not tolerate such things as this. Preparing for the work load and lifestyle is the two most important objectives to grasp early.

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

Many college students wanted to separate themselves from the adults who ran the government and felt that they were the ones who could change everything. These students were raised by cold-war inspired curriculum where they were taught that America was the best country and that no other country could even compare. “As we grew, however, our comfort was penetrated by events too troubling to dismiss” (301). As America was losing wars both overseas and on its home land many of these students began to question whether America really was the best. All of this caused students to protest and they would protest in large numbers. There were two waves of students who were involved in these protests and the first wave involved students who “were determined to make American institutions live up to the nation’s democratic promises” (290). The first wave protested over little things such as “in loco parentis” which was college administrators serving as parents because college students did not have parents with them on campus. These students protested the little things that these administrators controlled them with such as curfew and what clothes they were allowed to wear. These students would protest this in peaceful ways and would be successful as they proved that they were about to be adults therefor they should be allowed to make their own decisions. This first

In the article “Universities are Right to Crack Down on Speech and Behavior,” Eric Posner uses science, logic, reason, and morality to challenge the idea that college students are mature young adults who deserve the right to control their own behavior and to exercise unfettered free speech on campus. Furthermore, Posner contends that speech and sex codes have not always been lax but they changed drastically in the 1960s in response to the circumstances of the era. Consequently, the changes have brought about unwelcome freedoms that students themselves are currently rejecting. According to Posner, both parents and students agree that it’s time to for college administrators to resume a more conventional role in managing the speech and behavior

In the early 1960’s Stanley Milgram (1963) performed an experiment titled Behavioral Study of Obedience to measure compliance levels of test subjects prompted to administer punishment to learners. The experiment had surprising results.

In the two videos provided by FIRE, certain situations where students’ basic rights were violated were shown. In the first video presented by FIRE, I was very surprised to learn that some colleges opt to control what you wear, what you post on Facebook or what you say. Instead of educating young adults, it appears that colleges nowadays are trying to babysit them in every dimension of life, including their personal online social

person is not they will continue to obey because at least this way they feel as if they are a