The Anti-Free Speech Movement on America's College Campuses Essay

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.

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.

Despite their opinions, free speech was a great way in this situation for students to rally together and publically inform the rest of campus of their beliefs. In the school newspaper, The Daily Emerald, CJ Ciaramelle wrote “About 300 students from across the campus community — student unions, Greek Life, the ASUO, the Survival Center, the Women’s Center — showed up at the meeting to protest the Forum” (1). Although the majority of people protested against the forum the right to free speech, it is important because it allows students to make decisions on their own and invite students to do the same.

“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

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

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.

“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.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) made a statement “On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes,” 1994, which states, “In response to verbal assaults and use of hateful language some campuses have felt it necessary to forbid the expression of racist, sexist, homophobic, or ethnically demeaning speech, along with conduct or behavior that harasses…”

Now take a moment to consider how many people in America would openly declare dislike for freedom of speech. Not many, if not none. Of course freedom of speech is something to be fond of since it enables us with the ability to say whatever we want and having our own opinions without worrying about it. However, everything has limits, and we haven't set limits for this idea, which leads to confusion and controversy. The idea of freedom of speech is often stretched and distorted beyond to be used as an excuse, for example in hurled racial slurs. No matter how racist or hurtful a comment, who ever declared the said

If you keep a close eye on the news, you have heard of situations dealing with the issue of free speech on college campuses. This topic has been a hot button issue throughout recent years. Numerous institutions have become more politically correct in an effort to make their students feel safer on campus. Many people, however, claim that “word policing”, or telling students that they are not allowed to use certain vocabulary, is a violation of their right to free speech. In the articles “The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses” by Alan Charles Kors and “’Nigger’: The Meaning of a Word” by Gloria Naylor, readers are shown just how ridiculous the practice of word policing can be. Additionally, the article “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus” by Charles R. Lawrence III challenges the common arguments in favor of word policing. Based on the evidence presented in these articles, I believe that word policing is preventing college students from having honest and educational conversations on campus.

One of the most landmark cases on free speech was Schenck v. United States in 1919 where Charles Schenck mailed letters to draftees of World War 1 stating that the draft was wrong and to “not submit to intimidation”. The court concluded that Schenck was not protected under the 1st amendment in this situation because it was an attempt interfere with the draft which is a criminal offense. More specifically, there has been many cases involving college speech in the 1st amendment. There has been times where college speech has been restricted through history and times where it has been encouraged. College is a place where student speech should be open but also respected. There are many famous court cases involving fan profanity, student clubs, the newspaper, on college campuses. One of the first college speech cases was Sweezy v New Hampshire where the court had to decide if the Attorney General of New Hampshire could prosecute an individual who refused to answer questions about a lecture he gave on a college campus. The court ruled in favor of Sweezy. College speech became an issue ever since that

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.

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.

For centuries Universities have been a place to freely voice your opinion and debate with others. These institutions have been relatively safe harbors for debating social issues and exercising the individual's civil rights. However, current students seem to be the exact opposite, and the constitutional principle of free speech seems under siege. “Colleges and universities in the United States have retreated from strong historical support for free speech, including the dis-invitation of speakers, promulgation of speech codes that prohibit what is deemed "offensive speech," and students protesting the participation of politically unpopular speakers on campus” (Eliott)

Nearly all colleges and universities have adopted some form of anti-discrimination/harassment policies. These policies are meant to ensure that no student will be discriminated against due to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability. Many universities have adopted more specific policies regarding “hate speech” which prohibits speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or an offensive educational environment towards minorities, women, gays and lesbians, and the disabled. The problem with universities enforcing a strict speech code is that it is often a vague policy that in itself is discriminatory as it violates The First Amendment. The case of Omar Mahmood, a student at the University of Michigan who was disciplined for writing a satirical article, “Do the Left Thing” illustrates the problems with these types of policies.