The Importance Of Freedom Of Speech

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.

“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’

“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

“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.

Notwithstanding Chris Cantwell’s speech, “Free Speech Week” must be permitted to proceed as UC Berkeley, a government institution, demonstrates a commitment to the First Amendment. While allowing this event may be considered by many displeasing, it is in line with both the campus’s designation as a limited public forum, and the ruling from Supreme Court case Lamb’s Chapel

Derek Bok argues that American dedication to democracy is embodied in the Frist Amendment and that the freedoms granted in this Amendment are the building blocks of dialogues that contribute to cohesive communities born out of differences. The problem, however, according to Bok, is the difficulty of balancing the protection of these freedoms on campuses and universities where reasoned expression of diverse ideas is encouraged. Bok offers the suggestion that rather than attempt to stifle expression by imposing penalties for what might be considered offensive speech, “speak with those who perform insensitive acts and try to help them understand the effects of their action on others” (69). While this suggestion might imply a reasoned and

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)

UNC administrators were shocked when the Speaker Ban Law was passed. UNC president William Friday strongly opposed against the law because he was committed to the principles of academic freedom. The administrators wanted to replace the law with an “open forum” policy. In the end UNC formulated a policy that emphasized broad academic freedom for invited speakers, just as the administrators had be pressing all

In the current political environment, there is a growing divide between liberals and conservatives. Across the nation, there have been frequent protest against conservative organizations and speakers on college campuses. Earlier this year, the UCSB Student Senate voted to allocate $5,000 to a UCSB College Republicans’ hosted event (Brugger 2017). This event would host Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator. The approval of the event led to protests that argued that the conservative commentator incited violence and hateful speech. As a UCSB student, I got to hear the complaints that were made against the hosting of Shapiro.

There has been an issue lately about letting people that discriminate against other or are controversial speak at campuses. Some people think it is wrong to not allow these people to speak in campuses while others think it is for the best that do not let them speak. This led to the problem we have today. Three people are invited to speak on campus; one that believes that white people intellectually superior to people of color, the second being a homophone, and the last being anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. The campus they were invited to has a lot of people of color, Jewish people, and LGBTQ people in it. The college president wants prevent the speakers from coming to the campus as it would start trouble and asks us, the chairperson of the

In, On the Repression of Free Expression, Mike Bloomberg argues that freedom of speech is needed on campuses. Bloomberg also believes it is not right to take away the privilege of learning from students, just because of other individual students. “we cannot others the right and privileges that we demand for ourselves” (Bloomberg.104). They cannot have campus wide trigger warnings over one individual student. Condensing what students could learn, is not helping their education. Professors should be allowed to teach and discuss the topics they have to without fear. “Ideas can be dangerous” (Bloomberg.105). Not everyone’s opinion will be one to agree with, nor everything a person has to say, but people have to adjust to the real world where everything is not sugar

A Middlebury College student group invited Charles Murray to speak on campus. When the auditorium filled up with students for the Murray lecture, it was abundantly clear that the audience was anxious for rioting. Students were screaming, waving vulgar signs, and shouting at the preliminary speakers who were trying to introduce the event. When Murray walked out students caused such a disturbance that the lecture was moves to a different room to be broadcasted on youtube. Students further disrupted the event by pulling fire alarms.When Murray left the campus, the group he was with was assaulted by students. A woman who was making announcements at the event was injured after someone pulled her hair and twisted her neck. These events show Students no longer believe in intellectual discussion. Sadly this was not the only case of rioting and disturbances. In Oregon a group of students hospitalized a student for 4 months. The student posted a blog that discussed racial discrimination. In Maryland a group of students toppled over library shelves and injured 15 students and 1 administrator while protesting for Black Lives Matter. Rioting is spreading all over the country and is only getting worse. No student wants to study in an environment where they are afraid to speak out their beliefs at the risk of getting hospitalized. When you cannot speak out without getting hospitalized because of someone's safe space, is when fear controls the

College is the time for self-discovery, greater knowledge, and the formation of ideas and opinions. However, when looking at public institutions today, that ideal college experience is just a dream for many students because the restriction of speech lessens the opportunity for them to discover themselves and what they believe. Public universities are institutions of the state, and therefore must play by the same rules, including the First Amendment right of freedom of speech, as all other government run-institutions. Unfortunately, over the years, public administrators have slowly been restricting the speech of students, faculty, speakers, etc. through speech codes, college policies and many more methods. As said by Robert Zimmer, president of UChicago, these actions lead to an education “...that fails to prepare students for the challenge of different ideas and the evaluation of their own assumptions[, and creates] a world in which their feelings take precedence over other matters that need to be confronted” (Stephens). Limiting free speech on campuses has created overly sheltered environments for students, impairing their voice and creating a dysfunctional speech culture for our democracy in the current and coming generations.

If the extent of the students leads to arrests and people ending up in prison than there should be action taking place that allows freedom of speech but sets boundaries that esure others safeties. Along the same line administration and the staff must use logic behind their choices and chose speakers wisely. If I was in administration at an all girls college why would I let a misogynist or a womanizer come and speak, that is just setting flame to those who want to protest already. There is a dual responsibility that should be instigated within colleges, this would alive the tension and lead to a better learning