On Freedom Of Expression And Campus Speech Codes Summary

Harvey A. Silvergate stated in his article, “Muzziling Free Speech”, that “Our entire Country is a free speech zone, and that our campuses of higher education, of all places, cannot be an exception.” Free speech, in the form of hate speech, should be not regulated on American college campuses. Should hate speech be discouraged? Of course! However, developing policies that limit hate speech runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. The University of California System’s response to banning hate speech, speech codes in universities, law cases Doe v. University of Michigan and Sigma Chi Fraternity v George Mason University, and the view points of law professor Greg Margarian, proves why we should protect hate speech, even though it may seem wrong.

A few college campuses across America have attempted to craft speech code regulations that restrict speech based on a fighting words approach, meaning they’ve tried to make hate speech on campuses punishable by applying the fighting words law into the college campus setting. As Timothy Shiell says in Campus Hate Speech on Trial they base this argument on three points: “1. The First Amendment does not protect fighting words. 2. Some campus hate speech constitutes fighting words. Thus 3. Campus hate speech codes punishing and preventing fighting words do not violate the First Amendment.” Two of the universities that have used this logic to create speech restrictions include the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. While both speech codes have been struck down in court, these two codes were constructed with past cases and failed codes in mind, so that they’ve indisputably come the closest to being codes that the Supreme Court deems constitutional. Despite the ruling that these codes are unconstitutional, many advocates think that flaws were not in the speech codes, but rather, in the court’s decision.

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 First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution authorized citizens with the freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. This amendment also goes to the college students. However, colleges limited the students constitutional rights by enforcing the “free speech zones”.  Colleges are places where it enable students to encounter new and challenging ideas through open debates, but free speech zones limited this. You can only express your ideas in the free speech zones, nowhere else. This can be related to burning the flag (an action that intended to make a political point against a country or its policies), if you can’t express your ideas anywhere you wants, doesn’t it also indicates a person can’t randomly choose a place to burn the flag, it have to be in a specific area. Both theses is a way to express your rights as a citizens of U.S. Therefore, colleges shouldn’t restrict the political speech of students to free speech zones.

Erwin Chemerinsky describes the main opposing views on this issue in his book Free Speech on Campus, “One derides all efforts to protect students from the effects of offensive or disrespectful speech as “coddling” and “politically correctness.” The other side

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.

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

Charles Lawrence evokes that racist speech should be regulated to avert defaming the minorities in “On Racist Speech” from the Chronicle of Higher Education. The article addresses that racial insults do not deserve to be under the First Amendment because “the perpetrator’s intention is to injure the victim” (Lawrence 2087). After all, the Supreme Court has asserted that if the perpetrator’s intention is to “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace”, then they are not protected under the First Amendment (Lawrence 2086). The racist slurs on the university campus was one of the vexed topics since students should have “the right of an equal education in a safe environment” rather than being surrounded by verbal

“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 is the fundamental right, almost assumed as a divine ordinance on humans. Preliminary development of free speech starts at universities. Though considered an integral part of academic institutions and student intellectual growth, in the recent past there is growing intolerance for free speech ‘opinions’ expressed through different mediums. This paper compares two texts, “Free speech is flunking out on college campuses” by Catherine Rampell, and “Restoring free speech on campus” by Geoffrey R. Stone and Will Creeley. This paper argues that any text, without provisioning a counter narrative for the core argument, is lacking in its sense of completeness and ability to pre-resolve reactionary dissent.

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.

Although the First Amendment states that we should award the greatest amount of speech, racial speech is not deserving of this award because these words are meant to do nothing but harm another individual. The only time that speech may be regulated is when the victim is unable to get away from the racism such as in the home or in college bathrooms and common rooms. Lawrence feels that it is the responsibility of the university to protect the student to the fullest extent, and it is the right of the student to be able to walk around campus without being harassed. Although universities have attempted to make rules that ban the use of words as weapons to intentionally

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

“Free speech” often has negative connotations because the negative outcomes are publicized more than the positive outcomes. ‘Free Speech’ is a time for individuals to express their beliefs and topic on an important issue. People chose to present themselves in a vast majority of ways such as, holding signs, making t-shirts, shouting, etc. People who chose to present themselves in disrupting ways such as, foul language, inappropriate attire are more likely to be noticed than another student that is holding a simple and respectful sign. Schmidt states, “Universities cannot censor or suppress speech, no matter how obnoxious in content, without violating their justification of existence” (2). There is no definition of what type of ‘free speech’ should be censored and not allowed. With that said, there should not be a limit on ‘free speech’

Freedom of speech is more than just words, it is posters, petitions, rallies, protests, and more. This lets opinions be shared and spread to make a difference in the world. The problem is that in schools there is a limit on the amount of freedom of speech students can have. How are students supposed to feel like they have a voice when they are being told that they can only speak of certain topics? By what means could student be educated on their rights like the First Amendment if they cannot have full access to that right at all times? Students are brought together by freedom of speech, schools should not be stopping that. It is essential that freedom of speech in schools should not be limited because it gives students a voice, it educates them on their rights, and it brings students together.