Zuckerman's Speech On College Campuses

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.

It is made clear that college students are quick to form an opinion which doesn’t expand knowledge and can show unintelligence. Many people, more specifically protesters, believe one side and won’t open up and listen to the other side. Frank Bruni, an Op-Ed Columnist for the New York Times and the author of 3 New York Times best sellers in 2015, 2009, and 2002, tells us that the college protesters are wrong. His argument states that the college students need to be educated more on the whole subject because lacking education can essentially lead to being biased or sticking with the one side you believe in. The students were protesting a guest speaker, Charles Murray, who is identified as anti-gay, racist, and sexist. Although the guest speaker’s beliefs are terrible, the students should hear what he has to say. Frank Bruni’s “The Dangerous Saftey of College” presents an effective logical appeal; however, it lacks clear and concise evidence along with not presenting an emotional appeal to connect with the audience.

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

Feldman contends that state funded colleges are organs of the state and are much the same as government, and colleges are intended to be groups of discovering that require dignity and are more prohibitive than people in general square. Abuse, shouting, and criticizing somebody might be secured by the First Amendment, yet said discourse doesn't have a place in a classroom. David Boren, President of the University of Oklahoma has said the understudies were ousted on the grounds that their discourse was a structure of unfair behavior that made an unfriendly instructive environment for African American students. Having pledges repeat a chant not admitting an African-American is racial segregation and by removing the two serenade pioneers from grounds satisfies the instructive objective of keeping up a non-threatening training environment. In the event that in the working environment associates said blacks were inadequate for the employment it would be viewed as oppressive discourse under Title VII, be that as it may, in broad daylight the discourse would be secured as assessment, yet at work it is biased behavior in the type of

The 1960’s was the height of many civil rights and anti-war protests. During this time, student activist became more radical. It began mostly on college campuses when students would organize “teach-ins” to express their opposition to the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case called Tinker v. Des Moines. This case changed the history of America because it gave students freedom to voice their opinions. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the question of whether or not the First Amendment’s free speech rights extend to students’ symbolic speech can be analyzed by examining the background, considering the arguments, and reviewing the impact.

“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.

“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.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental American freedom and a human right, and there’s no place that this right should be more valued and protected than in colleges and universities. A college exists to educate and to advance a student 's knowledge. Colleges do so by acting as a “marketplace of ideas” where ideas compete. It is important to be able to compare your ideas with everyone else as it helps to open your mind to other people’s views and can give you a different perception on things. In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukiankoff talked about how too many college students engage in “catastrophizing," which is in short, the overreaction to something. They also said that “smart people do, in fact, overreact to innocuous speech, make mountains out of molehills, and seek punishment for anyone whose words make anyone else feel uncomfortable.”(Haidt) Many colleges have the belief that prohibiting freedom of speech will resolve such issues. But instead, colleges should take a different approach on the matter by teaching students how to properly utilize their Freedom of Speech which will help to resolve future conflicts and misunderstandings.

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?]

These are but a few of the provocative headlines to capture the attention of faculty and administrators in recent years. Such essays, for many, introduced terms like trigger warnings, microaggressions, and safe spaces, now commonplace in media coverage of academic life in the 21st century. The stories they tell involve a wide range of issues, but the overarching themes that bind them include concerns about restrictions on free speech, student sensitivity, and evolving campus policies regarding acceptable content and language in and out of the classroom. My role today as a member of

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

In his editorial, “The Year of the Imaginary College Student,” Hua Hsu asserts that “alarm about offense-seeking college students say[s] more about critics than the actual state of affairs.” Hsu begins his article by discussing James O’Keefe’s attempt at Vassar College to depict that college students are as politically sensitive as they appear. He goes on to demonstrate that college students are getting increasingly more “hypersensitive.” Hsu then questions the “surge of interest in campus life,” wondering why people who are not in college are questioning the behavior of those in college. Next, Hsu states that this panic about “offense-seeking college students” says more about the people criticizing rather than the system. Elucidating, he