Freedom of Speech on Campus - Essay Example

Some Speech Should be Limited on Campus The implementation of speech s on numerous campuses is a very important event. Such speech codes try to solve an apparently escalating dilemma of prejudice and racism at campuses by forbidding racially or religiously charged language, and by laying down sanctions for those who commit such form of racism and prejudice. Compelling arguments are presented by supporters on both sides of the debate. Supporters of these speech codes are talk about safeguarding at risk minority groups, about building a sense of belongingness or community, about creating a setting wherein learning can occur. Adversaries react with ideas oriented toward the marketplace, freedom of speech, the risks of selecting what is to be permitted and what is to be prohibited (Heumann et al. 6). Nevertheless, this essay argues that these codes are inspired by an honest, open aspiration to make things right, to make sure that at risk students and other individuals on campuses are not exposed to language that is meant to hurt. Thus this essay argues that some speech should be limited on campus. Defending Speech Codes The defense of speech codes depends greatly on sociological principles. The position or circumstances of minority groups and women on campus, for example, is usually quite vulnerable or inferior, and advocates of speech codes claim that the assets of the nation’s colleges have become accessible to these populations just lately and that efforts to regulate speech contribute to a more conducive, favorable environment for these groups on campuses. The escalation of hate speech on campuses is, somewhat partly, the outcome of a counterattack against the successes that have been attained by these groups in reforming the curriculum and admission practices (Fish para 4-6). Because of this, minority groups are trapped in a serious predicament; while their representativeness improves with their growing population, they are pushed to tackle a growing incidence of attacks. Regulation of speech on campuses is therefore intended to rescue these groups from such predicament and create a safe, comfortable place for them on campuses. Second, speech codes are statutory, if the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment are placed side by side with the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Independently, or together, these and other claims are organized to justify regulation of speech on campuses as acceptable within the bounds of the Constitution, and as desired and appropriate from a social and moral point of view. An associated justification of speech codes places emphasis on the environment and particular landscape of a campus community. A specific thread of this justification claims that community ideals can properly regulate speech—namely, certain aspects, like racially charged and obscene expressions, are obviously outside what a community should or ought to allow. Supporters argue that specific forms of speech, especially racist and chauvinistic, are classified under this constitutionally prohibited area. Third, hate speech on campuses adversely affect the learning environment of individuals belonging to ‘marginalized’ groups. The idea at this point is that a ‘hostile’ setting negatively affects learning and that for those who are harmed, a type of Fourteenth Amendment disowning of equal educational opportunity is being performed. For instance, Charles Jones connects this claim to the Brown resolution; thereby, he establishes a rigid principle: “[W]here the harm occasioned by group vilifying ethno-violence exceeds the value to society from the exercise of such speech, universities must act to protect the learning environment so that it facilitates, rather than retards, the progress of members of the student minority groups toward the goals of equal citizenship” (Heumann et al. 8). Charles Lawrence supported this statement in his article On Racist Speech by stating that the Brown resolution showed that segregation in schools was naturally unequal due to the premise or sentiment that segregation communicated—that minority groups, such as African Americans, were an inferior group (Lawrence 64-65). However, as argued by the opponents of speech codes, regulation of speech on campuses clash openly with the speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Those interested in and in defense of civil liberties have examined how the Supreme Court has eventually permitted a bigger respite or leeway for speech on the whole, and has dismissed nearly all content-based restrictions on most forms of speech. Hence, to see, in the nation’s campuses, codes that penalize speech because of content are shocking and, to a large number of people, very alarming. Susan Jacoby in her article A First Amendment Junkie substantiated such arguments through presenting an analysis of feminist arguments. She said that feminists who make an effort to repress what they consider as damaging pornography are similar to those who want to suppress freedom of speech on campuses. She further stated that “the impulse to censor places no faith in the possibilities of democratic persuasion” (Jacoby 49). But some scholars, like Derek Bok and Stanley Fish, propose a middle ground approach to the problem. Stanley Fish, for instance, argues that all speech has outcomes and repercussions, significant or insignificant; in such a way, all speech becomes an act. The very outcome of speech is in any case the core principle of the First Amendment. We allow, on paper, every form of speech because it is not possible to identify beforehand, and the state is thus not permitted to make an advance judgment, which claim will sooner or later generate the most favorable outcomes. This means that if a certain aspect of speech, like hate speech, brings about serious harm and is almost irrelevant to the pursuit of truth—that is, has trivial or no connection to the goal for which the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech—then there exists supposedly no justification not to disallow it (Fish para 8-10). As stated by Derek Bok in his article Protecting Freedom of Expression on Campus, “It is important to distinguish between the appropriateness of such communications and their status under the First Amendment. The fact that speech is protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil” (Bok 69-70). The R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul demonstrates how the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment can be misinterpreted. The resolution indirectly questioned the legality of other local and state hate statutes alongside speech regulatory efforts at public campuses (Legal Information Institute para 2-4). Therefore, the consequence of the case was to hinder but not totally put a stop to the implementation of constitutionally enforced restrictions on hate speech. More importantly, the case proved that a balance between the freedom of speech guarantees of the First Amendment and the equal opportunity protection of the Fourteenth Amendment should be established. Conclusions There are quite compelling justifications for defending even racially, sexually, or religiously charged speech. Possibly the leading justifications are that it strengthens our nation’s dedication to the principle of broadmindedness, and that, through safeguarding racially prejudiced speech from government control, we will be compelled to fight it as a nation. However, I am very apprehensive about the contribution of numerous proponents of civil liberties to the debate, or the parts or duties we have not able to fulfill, in the persistent, actual fight by which we identify our nation. It is the contention of this essay that by structuring the debate as something wherein the freedom of speech is in opposition to or irreconcilable with the abolition of racial discrimination we have merely promoted the objective of racial persecution and have positioned the racist on the moral pedestal, further provoking or inflaming racial intolerance. Works Cited Bok, Derek. “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus.” Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing. Sylvan Barnet & Hugo Bedau. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014. 69-70. Print. Fish, Stanley. Fair is Fair. The New York Times, 2012. Web. 22 July 2014. Print. Heumann, Milton et al. Hate Speech on Campus: Cases, Case Studies, and Commentary. New York: UPNE, 1997. Print. Jacoby, Susan. “A First Amendment Junkie.” Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing. Sylvan Barnet & Hugo Bedau. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014. 47-50. Print. Lawrence, Charles III. “On Racist Speech.” Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing. Sylvan Barnet & Hugo Bedau. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014. 64-68. Print. Legal Information Institute. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul at Cornell University Law School, 1992. Web. 22 July 2014. Print. Read More