Free Speech on College Campuses - Essay Example

[Teacher’s Free speech on college campus Introduction Freedom of speech is a topic that is widely contested due to its sensitivity and the fact that it is almost impossible to implement completely; hence, raising the necessity to make some exceptions. However, this issue becomes problematic as the First Amendment illustrates freedoms that are the backbone of all other freedoms in the United States. There is also a dilemma in the First Amendment as there is limited protection over the content of speech. Therefore, manipulating one freedom will have a consequential influence on the other. Speech codes have been implemented in an attempt to protect others from verbal abuse, however, this is a clear violation of the First Amendment and distances society further from the problems that lead to the culminate hatred towards the individuals who are often subjected to hate speech. Issue of speech code can clearly be seen in environments such as public schools as there are people from numerous backgrounds who have different views and opinions. Hence, this raises the question whether it would be suitable to give college students total freedom of speech without affecting the education system, There are also other rights that have to be protected such as the fourteen amendment that was implemented to give every citizen equal protection. There are differences in freedom of speech in the different countries. For example, China does not provide total freedom of speech and some media sources are actually banned from the country. China feels that restrictions in this aspect enable better control over the population. Hence, one must assess the two extremes and derive a conclusion whether it is advantageous or detrimental to give college students total freedom of speech. Human speech represents and expresses an individual’s views in terms morality and opinion. These are both subjective factors that can vary immensely among individuals. An example can be made of the Irvine’s 11 that made a stand against the refusal of Orsen to acknowledge that he had committed crimes against humanity. These individuals were arrested, and the school insisted that it would implement the appropriate disciplinary measures. Hence, in this aspect there is also the consideration of who the freedom affects and benefits. Clearly, the students expressed their opinion and showed no resistance or abusive behavior, however, should such stands be permitted in a college environment which has numerous questionable regulations? As mentioned above, college students are from many different backgrounds and share different views and opinions that may be extremely offensive to others and undermine their equality and dignity as human beings. However, the best way to control or react speech is through social and informal control rather that implementing codes. College students should be given unrestricted speech as this is their right (Sarabyn, 145). Body Supporting arguments There are many arguments that can be made in support of giving students unrestricted speech. One of these includes the fact that hate speech and other forms of speech that are restricted in public against others are a way of just masking the problem and inhibit a community based solution (Lawrence, 1). Lawrence states that the first amendment should be upheld and the aim of this right is to foster speech which includes racist speech. Allowing people to exercise this speech gives room for solutions that are community based (Lawrence, 1). Restricting hate speech belittles the purposes of the rights in the first amendment. In fact, it means the term freedom of speech is inapplicable. Unrestricted speech is also supported by the First Amendment fully and is not considered as an initiator of violence. It is not a guarantee that hate speech will lead to violence and the majority of times this speech is directed towards an entire race instead of an individual. The speech here is not the problem and each individual has the right to express his or her thoughts. However, by placing codes the main focus is placed on the speech rather than the underlying problem why these individuals possess these thoughts. It further worsens the situations as the issue being addressed is not the actual problem. A more effective approach would be to educate the students on equality and morality which would result in a better attitude towards other minority individuals. The issue of the First Amendment is valid as it protects any form of speech. Bok in his article Protecting Freedom of Expression on Campus rightly stated that there is no need to prohibit a certain communication simply because one disapproves it. If this was done it would mean other factors may also need to be revised as people disapprove different things based on their moral values and upbringing. Other authors such as Susan Jacoby are of the belief that the restriction of different factors such pornography in support of movements such as feminism is more damaging to the integrity of women (1). There is also the likelihood of the slippery slope if speech is regulated extensively. The main aim of allowing free speech is tolerance and enabling individuals to express their opinions. Hence, implementing codes places other liberties at risk as and makes the community vulnerable to censorship. In away, the restriction of certain speech is what keeps it offensive as people are antagonistic to oppression and will always maintain their views on other races even if they do not express them through speech. This is the situation whereby people speech only in terms of political correctness when in public places whilst continuing too expresses their true thoughts in closed circles. Informal control is also better than social formal rules as it gives individuals the ability to address the problem as the community. Formal rules will just mask the issue of hate and not address the actual reasons why people have a certain negative attitude towards minority. Social formal rules only lead people to speak on the basis of political correctness rather than their true opinions and the issue of racism will never be fully resolved. Opposing arguments Freedom of speech in the world can never be unrestricted in the any sphere especially the education system or college where students are required to adhere to certain rules and principles. I feel this environment is created for guiding students and excessive freedom is not a part of the college environment. In addition, one of the main reasons why the college system is not conducive to unrestricted speech is that it contains a diverse group of impressionable youths that posses different levels of maturity and at times conflicting opinions. Lawrence in his article The Debates over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It does on its Victim stated the impact that hate speech may have on the community (1). Individuals who are firm believers of the First Amendment are of the opinion that hate speech is a right and anyone should be able to exercise this right, however, the same article reported an increase in the amount of racial violence (1). In addition, the areas where the most violent incidences and racial attacks have occurred are the universities and colleges. Hence, unrestricted speech is likely to lead to increased violence in the colleges and may even result in more tragic consequences (Song, 15). Hence, it is clear that college students are not capable limiting their emotions to speech and violence is the likely outcome if this is unrestricted. The fourth amendment was implemented specifically with the purpose of protecting minorities and establishing equality in the community. In addition to an increase in the level of violence, unrestricted freedom of speech leads to the inability to control the pupils. The college system is an autocratic institute in the majority of its activities and giving the college students access to unrestricted speech can jeopardize the system (Goldman, 395). Students will question many aspects in the college system and demand their own personal views to be implemented. This will lead to the development of many movements and instability in the institute (Goldman, 395). Enabling total freedom of speech also negates the many innate principles that exist in the college such as the respect that should exist between a student and a teacher. If students can say whatever they want to the teacher, the respect will be negated as one party is likely to offend the other. As mentioned above, the fourteenth amendment is aimed creating equality and allowing hate speech reduces the voice of minorities as they are subject to a majority of the abusive dialogue. Eugene Volokh in his article Coding Campus assesses the approach by Harvard to ban any speech that is offensive or harassing in the classroom environment. This article also displays one of the reasons why in the college unrestricted freedom of speech is simply unrealistic. In the classroom, at times, the teacher can stop the student from talking if he feels the student is lost in his or her ideas and the best approach will be to give him or her correct answer. Freedom of speech would require the teacher to allow the student to continue speaking, regardless of the fact that what the student is saying is pointless and off topic. This would be both irrelevant and inconvenient to everyone in the classroom. Volokh acknowledged the fact that in the classroom there should be maximum control of speech. Hence, if there is control of speech in the classroom then the same should be done on campus. Giving the students unrestricted speech on campus outside the classroom will influence the behavior of the pupils in the classroom and they will demand the same rights here and the fact that many authors acknowledge restricting speech in the classrooms shows that the same approach is necessary in the entire college environment. Rebuttal The world also contains a diverse population and there is freedom of speech. Hence, the issue of restricting speech simply because it is a college is invalid as this institute has a role in preparing the pupils for the real world. When individuals leave the college environment they will be exposed to hate speech and must be ready to tolerate other people’s opinions. Hate speech can also not be considered as a violation of any ethics as it is not guaranteed that there will be violent retaliation to hate speech. Hence, speech restriction should not be done based on this assumption. Further, the violence will stop simply by restricting speech as this is only a form of expression of people’s thoughts and attitudes. The real problem is within the people themselves hence hate related violence will continue as long as individuals have a negative attitude towards people of a certain race. The control of speech in the classroom by the teacher should also not be in a way that undermines the rights of the pupil. Teaching is an art of understanding pupils and allowing them to independently think and express themselves and this will only be negatively affected by restricting speech. Conclusion Hence, the conclusion can be made that despite the possible negative aspects that can result from hate speech, codes are not the solution. A more social and informal approach should be taken through education and persuasion rather than the restriction or people’s rights to free speech. As illustrated above, speech codes are not a solution but rather a mask of an underlying problem. The goal of the community is to find the reason for this problem and this can only be done if people are allowed to freely express themselves. Therefore, one can conclude that speech in college should be unrestricted. Works Cited Bedau, Hugo. "Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing: A Brief Guide to Argument." (2011). Bok, Derek. "Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus." The Boston Globe 25 March 1991. Delivered, Justice Scalia. "RAV v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota." Crimes of Hate: Selected Readings (2004): 67. Goldman, Lee. "Student Speech and the First Amendment: A Comprehensive Approach." Fla. L. Rev. 63 (2011): 395. Hentoff, Nat. "First Amendment Protects Speech We Despise, Too." (2012). 22 Jacoby, Susan. "A First Amendment Junkie." Current Issues and Enduring Questions  (1999): 36-38. Lawrence III, Charles R. "The debates over placing limits on racist speech must not ignore the damage it does to its victims." The Chronicle of Higher Education36.8 (1989). Sarabyn, Kelly. "Free speech at private universities." JL & Educ. 39 (2010): 145. Song, Weifang. "Self-enhancement is not Restricted to Individualistic Cultures—The Evidence from Risk Decision Making." 5th International Asia Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Innovation (IEMI 2014). Atlantis Press, 2014. 15 Volokh, Eugene. "Thinking Ahead About Freedom of Speech and Hostile Work Environment Harassment." Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 17 (1996): 305. Volokh, Eugene. Coding campus. The problem of speech codes. 2002. Read More