The Oppression Of Freedom Of Speech In Schools

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.

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…”

The nation's leftists, whether in academia or the news media tout themselves as advocates of free speech. Back in 1964, it was Mario Savio a campus leftist who led the Free Speech Movement at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, a movement that without question played a vital role in placing American universities center stage in the flow of political ideas no matter how controversial, unpatriotic and vulgar.

Many colleges have enacted speech codes in which students are governed in what they say so that they don’t offend their peers. However, according to an expert by Lukianoff and Haidt, “ It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking...Don't teach students what to think; teach them how to think.” Students must learn to stand up for themselves. Nevertheless college campuses are a place for learning, students should be able to hear criticism, take criticism and learn how to deal with it in a peaceful way. In workplaces, in society and in rooms where hate speech is being used, students should be able to stand by what they believe in and fight for their claim with confidence. Lukianoff and Haidt point out that “Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control.” Again, offenses will be thrown out there all around you, you just have to learn how to deal with it. But where do you draw the line and say enough is

Over time the Supreme Court has decided that certain aspects of freedom of speech are more important than others. For example, if someone used their First Amendment rights to lie about things they knew were false, threatened to commit a crime, insult another person, or used overly explicit content, the courts have moral grounds to prosecute those persons. It makes sense that if someone’s freedom of speech lessened another person’s right to freedom of religion or freedom of opinion by instilling fear, that is an unfair use of the First Amendment. These parameters, although not specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights are very important to protect everyone’s right to feel safe believing the things that they do.

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.

In Des Moines, Iowa in 1968, three students arrived at their schools wearing black armbands symbolizing their thoughts on the United States being involved in the Vietnam War. The principal of each school quickly created a policy banning the armbands. This soon led to the suspension of the students from school. A lawsuit was filed on behalf of the students that eventually made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. The fact that the schools were regulating the children’s freedom of speech is wrong and unconstitutional.

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified. According to, In Our Defense: The Bill of Right in Action, the First Amendment stated that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (Alderman and Kennedy, pg.21). Because of the First Amendment, hate speech, “no matter how offensive its content”, was “protected” under the laws (ACLZ). However, people are still demanding more. They want hate-related speech to be allowed on campuses –without knowing the effects and the damage it could do. Hate speech could bring people down, lower their confidences and their school performance, and in some case, school avoidance. The audiences of offensive speech on campuses are students. At these ages, their brains are still developing and are very sensitive. Hate speech could affect the way they think for their entire life, and in the worst case, it could result in violence. Hate speech should not be protected on college campuses.

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.

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also

Speech that attacks a person or group of people on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is regarded as hateful. It has the potential to incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected group of people. In Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, Mill makes the claim that essentially all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. This claim holds its validity as long as no harm is done to an individual. Here, I will show that low value speech fails to engage deliberative views that underlie central first amendment fundamental liberties. Subsequently, I will support these claims by comparing the aspects of hate speech to low value speech. Lastly, I advocate for the prohibition against the use of hate speech in a university setting.

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.

Freedom of speech in schools this has been a big debate over it. And I think it is bad a good for the student body. I have some pro's and con's on what I think about it. The techers most likey do not like it unless they are mad. The students are most likey what to have the freedom of speech in the classrom.

While the group of students that were being bullies can be seen as absolutely wrong, they have the same right to freedom of speech as the group of students that were wearing the t-shirt. However, due to the type and context of slanderous remarks against the t-shirt group, the bullies would be wrong in this instance. When teachers or faculty witness bullying of any sort, there are some disciplinary actions that are taken to rectify the situation. By way of the First Amendment, all students have the right to freedom of speech in a variety of ways including displays.

You know what would be annoying? If everyone around you kept warning you of the potential dangers of playing football and then on the walk to class you get tackled by a linebacker. This is essentially how free speech is handled on campuses. Trigger warnings are plastered on every bulletin board and newsletter just so that you can be bombarded when you least expect it. As an inalienable right, limitations on free speech are limited, especially on a university campus. From the general misuse of free speech by speakers themselves to the assumption that limiting students is a valid solution, freedom of speech is overly mishandled. The best solution is to limit exposure by limiting where on campus colleges set the stage for presentations. It’s avoiding building S is easier than avoiding tabling efforts outside your classroom.