Free Speech is Threatened in Campus

Free Speech is Threatened in Campus

List of Topics

 The list of topics that I am interested in making an argument in their favor include; Terrorism, Death penalty controversy, Plastic surgery, Universal health care policy controversies, Free speech is threatened in campus, Sexual relationships, Global warming, Juvenile delinquency, and Parenting controversies. The topic that I am going to argue in its favor is, ‘Free speech is threatened in Campuses’. I have settled on this topic because, campuses comprise of almost half of the total population in most states and students protests on the motion have captured and motivated the media.  Additionally, free speech is a controversial topic which raises many related and related issues such as diversity and inclusion. Therefore, it is important to have an argumentative debate over it.

Argumentative Paper

Free Speech is threatened in Campus

The current ongoing protests on free speech that have erupted in campuses have created a room for discussions and debates on the debate to allow more explorations. Proposers of this argument debate that episodes of censorship are increasing in campuses, campus speech codes have intensified in the last few years, silencing those that are found offensive is on the increase. This is evident that free speech is threatened in Campuses.

Free speech is still valued in campus but it is clear that its values are under siege. Some months ago, students at the University of South Carolina were questioned for investigations because of advocating for a speech function by putting posters in display to raise complains on the censorship cases that has recently been observed in the campus. The investigations took place because some students raised complains that the erected posters were triggering and offensive. In connection to this, students at California College were forced to take matters to court in an attempt of vindicating the freedom of distributing copies of the constitution on constitution day. These cases are typical not anonymous. Speech policy of faculty speakers and students has become routine (Abul-Alim, 2018).

Campus speech codes have been there for decades but have intensified over a few years. In repose to guidelines issued by the US department of education, president Obama has criticized the downfall of student speech but his own administration is responsible for some of it. The education system has gone ahead declaring that all federal colleges and universities receiving federal funds to restrict sexual harassment in hostile environments. The problem with this is that the administration defined harassment broadly than it should be defined under the first amendment. There are many instances of censoring as opposed to the rare cases that the assumption insists on. Speech policing has become a routine, especially in the education sector. The speech code is an ancient debate which has intensified because of the recent guidelines that the U.S Department of education produced. This is to mean that free speech is more theoretical than practical.

Silencing those that are found offensive can take different forms, for instance having speech codes that term some word derogatory, demeaning, offensive, and jokes. This is in itself a hindrance to free speech. One cannot confidently say that there is freedom of speech when sanctions on speech are guiding people and codes of statement which dictates when, and how an individual can express themselves. Equality itself is defined and conducted in a way that there is an unequal distribution of speech rights. Harassment has been broadly defined which is to mean almost every verbal conduct is bound to fall in this category. We have seen demonstrations that suggest posters demonstrating censorship cases being named offensive and triggering. This is an indication that in as much as demonstrations and strikes are there, they hardly depict the liberty of free speech. The system is in such a way that suppresses certain slurs no matter how powerful they represent the general thoughts.  Therefore, even if one is allowed to comment at some debate, they have sanctions that are binding and restrictive to whatever word that will come out of their mouth. An instant is when a professor is giving a lecture, and they need to be careful about the scenarios they use in class so as not to be term biased or racist and to ensure that they incorporate diversity and inclusion in every word that they say. It is a hard place to navigate since they have to keep checking their words, this proves that free speech is just another one of our dream that we need to either snap out of it or work towards making it practical. The debater’s premise does not work.

Constitution on different codes especially talk codes is available in campuses, this gives people an assumption that people have free will of choosing what they want through voting is evident enough of the existence of free speech on campuses. Most campuses have a constitution that governs their daily routines. This premise, however, does not work because of the presence of the law itself shows that some sanctions are binding and the student does not have much say about it. If a majority of the students who voted for it are of the same belief, they seek to silence the other group which is already a discriminatory action. Therefore, the majority group gets advantageous positions over the other to imply that the minority group does not have much freedom of speech against anything that the majority regard as okay. Thus, in that case, the premise does not practically work. Also, when two parties are not agreeing on something, tensions build up, therefore, hindering any positive quality conversations from continuing. Additionally, the majority group always have an advantage and more freedom of free speech compared to the minority group. Lastly, one cannot confidently say that there is freedom of speech when people are guided by sanction and codes of speech which dictates when, how and how an individual can express themselves, especially during demonstrations and strikes.

When someone or a group of people complain about an offensive gesture, it is just an outlier case which should be given a powerful thought rather than be dismissed in a context that assumes there are rights on the issue at hand. Seriously though, this is outrageous. When a lot of complaints have been made about something, the persons or institution that is complaining expects an administration that is more powerful to come up with sanctions that will prevent any further future occurrences (Dryden, 2018). When two parties are not in agreement on something, tensions build up, therefore, hindering any positive quality conversations from continuing. In most scenarios complains about offensive speeches are considered in such a way that they are meant to improve the quality of communication. This is absurd and is not practical in normal day-to-day activities since the weaker party will feel silence and attempts to be defensive will not be considered and thus, violation of their freedom of speech.

Most critics claim that the demands of the students have gone too far, therefore, creating an atmosphere of intolerance for the unpopular points of view. The opponents of the debate brings into light the excellent point that is subject to quite some critiques. The main premises that the deliver on the table include; Episodes of actual censorship of institutional policies are exceedingly rare. According to Donvan (2016), an impulse to complain about offensive speeches is not an impulse to silence but rather an attempt to improve the quality of conversation to lay out the experienced and the unjust. The fact that just because someone called you racist, does not mean that you do not get to keep talking. It is not something that has to silence you but rather an attempt to improve the quality of conversation. Additionally, he argues that free speech has had an advancement that has taken place in the last several months in campuses. Although, Harper, addressed essential issues his argument still failed because we have a handful of institutional policies that hinder speech in colleges which include speech codes that are considered demeaning, jokes, offensive, and gestures among the many other regulations to free speech (Steinmetz & Rhodan et al. 2017).

According to critiques, episodes of actual censorship of institutional policies are exceedingly rare. Cases of speech policing where certain ideas are considered to have legitimacy are very minimal, almost unique. They go on to explain that in as much as some campuses have codes of speech, they are not institutionalized in writing; therefore, cannot be given many considerations. Additionally, he stresses that the systems should not be considered critical because they are meant to guide as opposed to policies. There is a lot of evidence to dismiss this premise.  According to Leuders (2017), the University of North Carolina, the majority of students are investigated for many things among them discrimination after advocating for free speech, for putting posters demonstrating censorship cases after some students raised complains that the signs are triggering and offensive.

Elaborately, critique argue that one enjoys the benefits of free speech every time they talk, attend some campaign somewhere, or are allowed to make demonstrations. This view does not hold much practicality because discrimination against the minority can occur in different ways. One does not need to tell you not to attend some debate for you to see that your freedom of free speech is violated. Sometimes it does not come out that clear(Moyers, 2018) They extensively argue that that free speech has had an advancement that has taken place in the last several months on campuses. This is to mean that the rise in the demonstration that students express in different styles and techniques is an indication of progress in the liberty for freedom of speech. That the strike advances themselves shows that there is free speech. There is a lot of confusion between speech and verbal conduct which is a crucial factor in the arising issues (Kerr, 2008).

In conclusion, freedom of speech is a very important aspect for an active engagement in the contemporary society. In as much as there are many cases of censorship, restrictions campus speech codes have intensified in the last few years, silencing those that are found offensive is on the increase. All these are evident in the Campus setting that prove that free speech is threatened. Free speech should be encouraged and motivated to promote peaceful and healthy co-existence.

References

A National Recommitment to Free Speech on Campus Is Long Overdue. (2017). Vital Speeches of the Day, 83(11), 334–337. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=125990168&site=ehost-live

Abdul-Alim, J. (2018). Free speech: Staying mission and admission centered during the rise of controversial language and events on campus. Journal of College Admission, (239), 50–52. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=130810992&site=ehost-live

DRYDEN, J. (2018). Protecting Diverse Thought in the Free Marketplace of Ideas: Conservatism and Free Speech in Higher Education. Texas Review of Law & Politics, 23(1), 229–267. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=134763626&site=ehost-live

Medicaid.gov. (n.d.). Affordable Care Act. Retrieved from https://www.medicaid.gov/affordable-care-            act/index.html

Donvan John. Free speech is threatened on campus. Intelligence Squared Debates. (2016, March, 7s).Retrieved from https://youtu.be/VrD_tSdWv4w

Steinmetz, K., Alter, C., Begley, S., Reilly, K., & Rhodan, M. (2017). The Campus Culture Wars. TIME Magazine, 190(16/17), 48–55. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=125621795&site=ehost-live

COGAN, M. (2018). The Twilight of Free Speech Liberalism. New Republic, 249(7/8), 16–25. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=130105677&site=ehost-live

Lueders, B. (2017). ‘Shut Up, Already!’: The New Battle Over Campus Free Speech. Progressive, 81(6), 52–55. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=123986115&site=ehost-live

LAWRENCE, P. G. (2018). When Core Values Collide: Diversity, Inclusion, and Free Speech. Liberal Education, 104(2), 14–19. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=130751849&site=ehost-live

MOYERS, B. (2018). ACADEMIC FREEDOM and FREE SPEECH on CAMPUS: AN INTERVIEW WITH JOAN W. SCOTT. Academe, 104(1), 19–23. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=127445339&site=ehost-live

ABRAMS, F., ALI, A. H., BOLLINGER, L. C., EPSTEIN, R. A., FRENCH, D., GELLER, P., … SILVERGLATE, H. (2017). Is free speech under threat IN THE UNITED STATES? WE RECEIVED TWENTY-SEVEN RESPONSES. WE PUBLISH THEM HERE, IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER. Commentary, 144(1), 13–33. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=123712146&site=ehost-live

Hate speech is not free. (2018). New Scientist, 237(3166), 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(18)30321-X

Kerr, R. L. (2008). The Corporate Free-speech Movement : Cognitive Feudalism and the Endangered Marketplace of Ideas. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=244655&site=ehost-live