University Of Chicago Analysis

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.

The purpose of my research is to explore and offer analysis of the controversy over the use of trigger warnings and safe spaces on college campuses, in order to understand when, where, and most importantly, regarding what subjects their use is appropriate.

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.

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

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.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom

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?]

Some of the most concerning effects of trigger warnings pertain to the well-being of students and the academic freedom of professors. In “The Coddling of the American Mind” from The Atlantic, the authors describe how trigger warnings may affect students’ mental health saying, “A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically” (Lukianoff and Haidt). The implementation of trigger warnings has been seen as a call for censorship in the name of sensitivity. This suggestion of a change in curriculum is alarming college faculty members across the nation. Professors are fearful of offending students and damaging their reputations. In “Survey

The clarity of the article’s themeshave been clearly conveyed in the introduction and topic sentences. The main purpose of this article is how the ACLU opposes speech codes and tries to promote their own solutions to eliminate hate speech. “In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse…campuses”, this opening paragraph gets the reader well versed with the topic, its severity and also familiarises it with the measures being taken to prevent hate speech before the author is able to oppose the idea of speech codes. The author then jumps right into denying the approach taken by universities and colleges to censor speech in the first paragraph “That’s the wrong…..

The presence of fear begins to reduce when students start to create a tolerant, inclusive social normality. This theory is discussed in a study conducted by Rebecca L. Stoltzer and Emily Hosselman. It is concluded that when looking at the pros and cons of a more diversely populated campus climate, these results insinuate a, “promising relationship between increased diversity in the student body and a reduced number of hate crimes on campus” (Stoltzer and Hosselman 654). It is Stoltzer and Hosselman that actually argue the investigation of how students rather than the institutions can reflect on campus climate. This can once again be completely traced back to student interpretation and how they choose to react or not react on those interpretations. This topic is also explored in an article by Raymond A. Winbush in which he pleads to, “Establish a campus committee involving high-level administrators and students from both the victimized group and popular campus organizations such as fraternities and sororities” as one of his do’s on a list of do’s and don’ts (Winbush par. 26). This is a great way in order to promote inclusion without instilling fear or blame on certain groups of

Lately, the term 'safe spaces' are callously thrown around and mocked in debates and in newspaper op-eds. To many people, the concept of safe spaces has contributed to the oversensitivity of American youth and even a serious threat to free speech, especially in college campuses. A recent example of this negative rhetoric is the University of Chicago's notice to incoming freshman, stating that they “do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own." While many people are applauding Chicago's move and praise the letter as a positive impact on campus life, it actually does the complete opposite. Policies like these puts many students in the uncomfortable position of entering a discussion or forum that may not be safe for them to learn, interact or share. This why I believe a new normal twenty five years from now will be the availability of safe spaces on every college campus in the United States.

In the article “Universities are Right to Crack Down on Speech and Behavior,” Eric Posner uses science, logic, reason, and morality to challenge the idea that college students are mature young adults who deserve the right to control their own behavior and to exercise unfettered free speech on campus. Furthermore, Posner contends that speech and sex codes have not always been lax but they changed drastically in the 1960s in response to the circumstances of the era. Consequently, the changes have brought about unwelcome freedoms that students themselves are currently rejecting. According to Posner, both parents and students agree that it’s time to for college administrators to resume a more conventional role in managing the speech and behavior

Freedom of speech in schools can leave lasting impacts on students’ by helping them grow into mature, young adults. “Colin Kaepernick said, ‘I’m not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color’ … Brandon Marshall, who also has knelt during the national anthem, said, ‘the message is ‘I’m against social injustice’”(Refusing to Stand...). Taking pride in rights is a respectful way to protest and to show maturity. In colleges, many may be following in the footsteps of Colin Kaepernick while others are growing into adults by coming across hate symbols. Liyanga de Silva’s article “banning hate symbols” shows that some schools such as UMD may give students’ the illusion that people who are bigoted do not exist. “A university can not and should not violate students’ rights to free expression, and, as unlikely as it seems, having experiences with hateful people can be important” (Silva). Having experiences can help when students’ are growing into adults because it gives them things to go off of when trying to solve a problem as an adult. Freedom of speech is a way to help students’ face adulthood. Lasting impacts such as getting hurt by hateful people can help while students’ are growing into adults. In adulthood students’ may use past experiences to help themselves.