Analysis Of The Threat To Free Speech At Universities By Greg Lukianoff

In the article “The Threat to Free Speech at Universities”, the author Greg Lukianoff expresses concern over methods which universities are employing to protect free speech, and how many people are abusing those methods. He especially makes emphasis on how many people are simply declaring speech they don’t like as harassment, and making it harder to draw the line between what truly is harmful speech and what is not. I disagree with the author because while he makes a valid point, the perception of what is harmful speech varies from person to person. While one person might not take offense to a statement, there may be a dozen others who do. This illogical ideology has been used to harm people for centuries ; when offense is taken to a statement,

for example, the person who said the offensive statement will often make a jab at the offended, with something like “lighten up” or “learn to take a joke”. This promotes harmful thinking on the perpetrator’s part. Instead of thinking about what they say and considering others, they are simply dismissing any criticism and thinking themselves the better person. The offended often has no broad choice of what to do, only having to accept the words of the perpetrator or to cut contact with them. In this situation, there is no “middle ground”.

In the article “Cheering Free Speech” the author Jeff Mateer asserts that people have a fundamental right to religious free speech. In the context, he cites one example of a group of cheerleaders at a Texas high school putting up banners with religious messages on them. It is argued that it is hypocritical to ban one type of speech but allow another. I disagree with the author becayse this argument is often used by people who push for “religious liberty” while simultaneously using their speech to harm others; ie. Christian people expelling hatred against Muslims and/or homosexual people. While power systems are prevalent here, the majority of people who exercise their right to free speech to harm others are often blissfully unaware that they are preaching hatred. These people come from a variety of backgrounds. Many were taught these things growing up and don’t “know better”. However, this is not a valid excuse anymore. Educating oneself on what is and isn’t hate speech takes very little effort, and many people outright refuse to do this. Their circles of friends often think the same way, promoting their ideologies and “patting them on the back”, so to speak. This is harmful to many different groups of people, and the ignorant sometimes even take pride in their hurtful speech, citing their religion or political beliefs and telling people who are offended by or disagree with them to simply accept their slander. Begrudgingly, most do, but the vocal minority who refuse to tolerate their hate speech are, unfortunately, very often the victims of hate crimes, driven by these people who claim free speech.
In each of these articles, the author presents his point concisely and clearly.

Though the methods through which these ideas are communicated is different, they are rudimentarily the same; expressing two opposing views and even using a bit of persuasion to try to sway the reader. While both articles are well-written and succinct, I do not agree with either of them, simply because they are both trying to belittle the harassment that marginalized people and groups may face on a daily basis. Regardless of whether or not a few outliers may abuse their free speech, I believe that everyone has the right to be respected. If one person deems something hate speech, it may not actually be hate speech, but the cause for the statement should be thoroughly analysed and taken into consideration. People should ask themselves questions when confronted with a situation such as this; “Am I promoting hatred against one group or another?”, “Is what I am saying offensive at its core?”, “If I am saying offensive things, does that say something about me as a person?”. By asking themselves these questions, people may be able to better understand the views of others and be careful of their speech. Toleration of hate speech is not acceptable under any circumstance, and neither is hate speech itself. Claiming free speech is not a free pass to spout offensive ideologies, and people who do so are living through a jaded mindset. Free speech is not about protecting hate speech, it is protecting one’s right to say things without government intervention. Once, if ever, people understand this concept, this problem will no longer

exist.