Right To Be Offensive

In order to uphold the integrity of our democracy, constitution and higher education standards, there must be an effort to preserve free speech on college campuses. However, in equal measure as illustrated in the First Amendment, students should also be protected from hate speech and provided an equal chance of receiving a safe education. Perhaps it is beneficial to also consider however, that a ‘safe’ education should not be misinterpreted as an entirely un-offensive one. In order to assist in the political discussion and recommended courses of action regarding free speech on college campus, political philosophers’ John Stuart Mill and John Rawls texts’ will be referred to and analyzed in this essay.

Why do these authors say restrictions on students’ speech rights are a “step in the wrong direction”?

In the article “Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Free Speech, too” published in the New York Times by Sophie Downes, Downes argues in response to a letter sent out by the dean of the University of Chicago. The letter states that safe spaces and trigger warnings were an issue deterring students from having free speech and therefore would not be supported on the Chicago campus anymore. Downes argues that the letter was just a poor attempt to advert attention away from the real issues on the campus—ones that the dean will not meet with student council about and will not talk about at all. Sophie Downes argues that safe spaces and trigger warnings actually encourage free space and enhance support and community—two values that the dean said were deterred by the existence of them.

“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

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

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

“A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense” (Lukianoff and Haidt 44). Colleges are sheltering their students from words and ideas that students do not like or are found to be offensive. Affecting their education and cognitive skills, scientists are warning colleges to refrain from coddling the students and allowing other viewpoints to be spoken. People are speaking their minds, saying their own views; however, some people are over sensitive and take these viewpoints offensively. In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt successfully argues using rhetorical questions, specific examples, and affective visuals that protecting college students from words and ideas deteriorates their education and mental health.

Authors of both articles disagree the suppressing and censoring of free speech observed in some universities. While Rampell is disheartened by violent reactions of students upon reading a conservative essay written by a ‘moderate conservative’ in a student newspaper, Stone and Creeley are worried, in general, about the broader measures of censoring free speech across universities. Rampell, in particular, had direct access to the writer of the conservative essay, which gave her a deeper understanding of the actual reactions and subsequent happenings. Stone and Creeley had off hand access to the past happenings of three individual cases of censoring free speech expressions by teaching faculties. In one case, a university dissented to a faculty member’s published essay on

In his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.

Free speech on college campuses has been a widely debated topic in recent years. Because of this, the opinions held on this subject vary. In the editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses”, the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune defends the idea of education and free speech. The Editorial Board states that students today are not receiving as useful of an education because of the barriers put on free speech. In addition, they argue that in not allowing students to feel uncomfortable, they are not receiving a true education. [A little more summary here would be helpful—how does the author support these claims?] The editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses,” introduces a valid logical argument on education through describing instances in which students experience uncomfortable learning situations, and the ways in which they were handled. [Hannah, your reasons here are about content, not about rhetoric—what rhetorical reasons is the argument strong?]

Lately in the United States, there is tension. Citizens do or say things that others prefer not to see or hear. But, when it comes to professionals, such as professors at universities, making these offensive statements it is a whole different circumstance. Some professors are offered a contract in which they are allowed to do and say whatever they please, but others are not. Even though the amount of tenure contracts offered are decreasing, Jeanne Zaino, the author of “Offensive Speech and the Contingency Clause: Adjuncts who are outspoken are losing their jobs,” published on the website Inside Higher Ed., believes professors and their jobs should still be protected under the First Amendment. Zaino references back to the story of two professors who publicly stated very unpopular opinion. They ended up fired due to their public statements. According to Zaino, these two should have not been fired. On the other hand, the professors should have known better because they represent a university. These professors knew what the consequences would be after making their statements. Besides the fact that I disagree with Jeanne Zaino, the essay is fairly written. It is not perfect due to its poor assumptions of what the reader must already know and believe. Although, these are key components, the author did a good job by explaining what was currently happening and showed a decent amount of research to back up their credibility. Zaino did a decent job writing her persuasive piece.

Per Mill’s framework the government should not intervene in this case. Mill’s belief is that government intervention should only occur when there is physical harm. In this case, there is no physical harm, but there is offence as Muslims are targeted by the article. Mill believes that if something is offensive, society cannot do anything about it but avoid it or try to persuade the author to believe otherwise. The students attempted to persuade Maclean’s that the opinion stated in Steyn’s argument was incorrect and hateful, and to post an opposing view but had no luck. I believe the students should have then just informed people in Canada that Maclean’s is offensive, and

In a perfect world, student publications wouldn’t be censored, but as many people know, the world is far from perfect. Censorship is an unfortunate reality for many student publications across the nation and although it is perfectly legal for them to be censored, many advisors and publications staff members are unhappy.

The article addresses the immense problem associated with the current process of studying enabled in colleges and universities. With an accent on emotional welfare, students arise and demand to clean the campuses of ideas, words and actions that may in any way give an offence or cause discomfort to some individuals. In such manner, such classical pieces of literature as The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald or Metamorphoses by Ovid are now must possess a so-called “warning labels”, as, by the opinion of this student’s movement, they depict a physical abuse and depravity. What is more, the teaching staff is not safe either, since if the lecture contains some words that may offend some nationalities or beliefs they must be disposed as well. More importantly, universities have initiated issuing “trigger warnings” and “microaggressions”, and have made “safe spaces” where no one allowed possessing a personal view, all the more to voice it (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015). With the, so to say, thriving democracy and an unlimited freedom of speech, which are, step by step, become more elusive, the world head towards the world described in Orwell’s 1984: a terrifying place, where

Students on many campuses are concerned with debate of ideas and therefore also with free speech issues. So I 'll ease the students of a diverse college with an appropriate free-speech policy. The policy should be freedom of speech no matter the topic. Since in the text, “The importance of protecting even the thoughts we hate.” (Volokh, E. (2015, November 2). The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com) proves with the sentences;