Freedom of speech on campus is a right as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Recently it is an argumentative issue on several campuses (Amar). Students are tired of the first amendment as it is becoming more vulnerable to violation. Note that, students are creating very hostile and unsafe learning premises for themselves. Thus, speech codes prevent a lot of harm that would perhaps occur to students (Herron). Violation of speech can involve sensitive verbal attacks that would otherwise oppress and discriminate a student (Arthur, John, and Amy). Such a minor violation can affect the ability of a student. In addition, speech codes promote rational arguments. Free speech can easily provoke violence yet when it is regulated it can trigger debates where students can argue with facts and reasoning. According to Bok, Derek Curtis, and Derek Curtis Bok, in a group 1000 college and university students only 15 percent understand the First amendment and free speech acts. On the other hand, it was found that about 36 percent of the daily news supported the prevention of offenses to minorities while only 12 percent supported the fact that the government should be able to regulate free speech. The kind of information available to students triggers their urge to misbehave (Arthur, John, and Amy). They are incited to use intimidating words against other students and administration. Therefore, based on the statistics there is need to understand the difference between free speech and civil dialogue (Amar). Speech on campus should therefore be restricted with speech codes to minimize cases of violation of speech (Herron).
Reaction from college administrators (apologies and resignations) shows how the freedom of speech has been suppressed. Speech codes shield students from giving free opinions (Fish). How then will such students respond to critical situations off campus? Colleges are no longer free societies. Students are undermining the rights of other students in the name of forging a peaceful coexistence and diversity (Barnet, Sylvan, and Bedau). However, this is as a result of speech codes which undermine the education curriculum that promotes genuine tolerance of diversity. The limitations of speech codes outweigh the benefits (Tsesis). A social college accommodates different opinions; both popular and unpopular. To consider this situation not a threat is to ignore the reality (Fish). Freedom of speech is threated by several parties in the society ranging from police spies intolerant students and overzealous administrators (Tsesis). Activists are pressing for speech codes. Professors and students don’t give their views because of the fear that their views might cause harm to other people. Honest opinion about campuses is becoming extinct and college life is engulfed with more controversies (Barnet, Sylvan, and Bedau). There is overwhelming evidence that speech on campus is under siege and thus colleges should emphasize on a free society that has genuine respect for free expression and thought (Lawrence, pp 440).
Work Cited
Arts, Stanley Fish. There's No Such Thing As Free Speech: And It's a Good Thing, Too: And It's a Good Thing, Too. Oxford University Press, USA, 1993.
Arthur, John, and Amy Shapiro. Campus wars: Multiculturalism and the politics of difference. Westview Pr, 1995.
Amar, Akhil Reed. "Case of the Missing Amendments: RAV v. City of St. Paul, The." Harv. L. Rev. 106 (1992): 124.
Bok, Derek Curtis, and Derek Curtis Bok. Beyond the ivory tower: Social responsibilities of the modern university. Harvard University Press, 2009.
Barnet, Sylvan, and Hugo Adam Bedau. From critical thinking to argument: A portable guide. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005.
Herron, Vince. "Increasing the Speech: Diversity, Campus Speech Codes, and the Pursuit of Truth." S. Cal. L. Rev. 67 (1993): 407.
Lawrence, Charles R. "If he hollers let him go: Regulating racist speech on campus." Duke Law Journal 1990.3 (1990): 431-483.
Tsesis, Alexander. "Burning crosses on campus: University hate speech codes." Connecticut Law Review 43.2 (2010).
