Is Disciplining Students a Right Reserved to College Faculty - Essay Example

? To my surprise, a friend of mine, Jacob Dominguez, decided to turn up for U.S. History Jacob has always struggled in school due to his unpredictable outbursts and unconventional mode of expression. That day he was determined to make most of the history class. While trying his best to make sense of the lecture, he became frustrated and yelled “Fuck history. I hate history and all this bullshit. I don’t even know why we need to learn this shit. I am damn sure that our government is bunch of corrupt fools.” Entire class burst into laughter except our history teacher. She got furious, scolded him for being a failure all his life and quickly wrote him a referral to principal. Once Jacob refused to leave class, school security was called in to escort him out. Later a parent conference meeting was scheduled and he was awarded an hour detention for a week. Was Jacob’s right of freedom of expression under first amendment violated? Was the management decision justified? How can we draw a balance between rights and obligations under the garb of freedom of expression? One’s unpopular speech is other’s free speech. Is disciplining student a right reserved to college faculty? This essay tends to analyze these questions by comparing two essays from Stanley Fish and Stuart Taylor in order to seek a plausible role of first amendment in college campus. Stanley Fish, in his essay “The Free Speech Follies”, argues that there is general tendency in America to hide behind first amendment. He is clearly troubled by the double standards which prevail in college campuses seeking refuge under attire of first amendment. He advocates acceptance of consequences of one’s speech as there is never an obligation to say anything at any point of time. On the contrary, Stuart Taylor Jr., in his essay “How campus censors squelch freedom of speech”, argues that college campus policies violate the First Amendment rights of students and one shouldn’t be punished or penalized for what he/she say. Although, Taylor and Fish both make evenhanded arguments, Taylor’s arguments are more convincing because of his rational of a more comprehensive view of the First Amendment. Fish initial argument starts from Fredrick Schauer description of first amendment opportunism i.e., tendency to hide behind the first amendment. Both of them believe that “such claims are just moral, social, economical, ideological assertions but do not have any special philosophical and historical affinity with first amendment”. So, what was the philosophy which shaped first amendment? Wasn’t it to foster a society and land of free from tyranny? It was the dire need for protection of rights of all Americans to express their moral, religious, political, and other convictions / opinions that envisaged First Amendment. This philosophy shaped political, cultural, moral and social values promoting freedom of expression over the years. Critical thinking and approach is evident from Supreme Court’s interpretation of First amendment in series of judgments over the years. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to assert that these claims have no philosophical and historical affinity with First Amendment. Fish is clearly troubled by the double standards practiced in campus. He illustrates it with example of editors in campuses. He believes that an editor exercise judgment when he decides what to publish or not and it is different from silencing and self censorship. Silencing means to compel or reduce to silence while censorship implies control exercised repressively (merriam-webster). Fish argues that no one is silenced because a single outlet declines to publish their work but still has choice to say what he wants to say. He believes “Silencing occurs when that outlet (or any other) is forbidden by the state to publish him on pain of legal action; censorship is the same”. He further adds “Self-censorship, in short, is not a crime or a moral failing; it is a responsibility” I agree with Fish on this account that there needs to be more responsibility and people should not be able to rely on the Free Speech Amendment to do it for them. There is no First Amendment issue here, just an issue of editorial judgment and the consequences of exercising it. I think Fish underestimates the connection of rights and obligations here. The right of freedom of expression generates obligation to recognize it. Editors have the obligation of responsible journalism. He exercises it through his judgment but under the ambit of responsible journalism. He is obligated to cater the freedom of expression. Taylor believes that students are silenced when they try to voice out their opinions on school campus because of the policies that exists on campus. He questions the idea of censorship that pollutes nation’s campuses and its effects on student’s chances of getting into grad schools. Management at campus may argue that it is responsible for safe environment for students. But should it be at the expense of freedom of choice. Should it restrict a student from an outlet that should be accessible to him for expression of his views? He points out that though situation has improved after number of legal battles but censorship still persists under the guise of enforcing indistinct rules against racial or sexual harassment. Administration interprets these rules to include any speech that offends minority groups and enforce it with no facade of fairness. Their imprecision infringe not only students' First Amendment rights but may violate contractual rights in the case of private universities that publicize themselves as dedicated to liberated and open debate. Last but not the least, campus censors consign a basic error in assuming that fidelity to civil liberties requires protecting traditionally subordinated factions from harsh stance by repressing the civil liberties of others. They both recognize that public speech is being affected. Both of them know the importance of freedom of speech. Both agree that unpopular speech should be protected like popular speech on equal footings. Both of them are troubled by double standards displayed at college campuses. Editor’s choice of publishing articles is not regulated by freedom of expression but is influenced by their judgment. On the other hand, universities promote ideas of free and fair debate but suppress the freedom of expression of one group at the expense of other. However they differ on few accounts as well. Fish emphasize acceptance of consequences by students as it is right to speak one’s mind. On the contrary, Taylor believes that students should not be penalized for exercising their right of freedom of expression. Fish believes that if an outlet prohibits publication it does not amount to censorship but Taylor condemns these policies as direct infringements to freedom of expression. Fish downplays rights and obligations but Taylor considers right of freedom of expression necessitating obligation of recognition of this fundamental right. It is important to consider these two landmark judgments of Supreme Court regarding freedom of expression. In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the United States Supreme Court noted that: "A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech . . . is . . . protected against censorship or punishment . . . . There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view." Likewise court held in Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991): "The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.  Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection."  Taylor does encompass the rationale of rights and obligations better than Fish. Jacob and Henkins were harshly treated. Their right of freedom of expression was infringed. Though it is understandable that colleges are also responsible for grooming of students but this should not be done at the expense of their legal rights. Society needs to be more tolerant to the unpopular speeches. Consensus developed through accommodation of difference of opinions brings cohesion to the society and has long lasting impact. It is for us to decide that what place we shall give to toleration in context of our cultural and social goals so that there may be no room for doubt or ambiguity. Work Cited Fish, Stanley. "The Free speech Follies." The Chronicle of Higher education. On Line Chronicle Mag., 13 Jun. 2003. Web. 19 Sep 2011. Taylor, Stuart. " How campus censors squelch freedom of speech." Center of Individual Rights.The National Journal, 14 July. 2003. Web. 19 Sep 2011. "Silencing" Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 19 Sep 2011. "Censorship” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011. Web. 19 Sep 2011. FindLaw. “FindLaw: Supreme Court”. 19 Sep 2011. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=337&invol=1 Read More