To What Extent are Campus Speech Codes Beneficial?
Freedom of speech is permitted but must be limited at a level to which this freedom does not infringe onto other people’s rights. For that reason, speech codes must be identified in order to distinguish between banned behaviors. Research at Emory University indicates that there have been increased cases of abusive language and hate speech. Studies conducted at Emory University indicate that approximately 75 hate speech codes were placed in colleges and universities in the US in 1990. The same study reveals that by 1991 the codes had grew to 300 indicating an increase in abusive language (Uelmen). Further studies also reveal that most of the abusive cases are coming from racial discrimination
…show more content…
According to Haiman’s definitions hate speech can be categorized into four broad meanings. The first category is when the words used create a hostile environment that is difficult to work (Svarda 60). Secondly, hate speech when uttered during a crime it can be used by the judges to enhance penalty for a crime. Thirdly, Haiman categorizes hate speech as fighting and actionable words that can causes retaliation that may provoke violence. Haiman also categorizes hate speech as an act of violence or provokes physical violence that demonizes the speaker (Svarda 60). Because of the negative effects of hate speech the speech regulation and establishment of speech codes for colleges and universities is beneficial because it will regulate derogative language that can lead to infringement of human rights. Engaging in hate speech violates the rights of those targeted by the hate messages impeding the other students’ rights to learn and receive an education. Also, it is morally right to control what might be injurious or might allow discord among the people. This paper therefore argues that hate speech leads to stigma and violation of civil rights hence, directing hate speech leads to humiliation of the students while the underrepresented students cannot claim a fair and equal access to freedom of speech …show more content…
In institutions of higher learning, it cannot be ignored that people have different historical backgrounds that can be used to create animosity towards other groups. Thousands of students travel abroad every year while searching for higher education in Europe and America every year (Nelson 2). Such students are different in terms of race, color, and culture. Regulation of speech, hence, plays a significant role in ensuring that the students coexist harmoniously in the campus. Moreover, in an environment that is supposed to provide a critical and creative thinking, regulation of such speech only acts as a guide to aid the student body to shun hate speech, fallacies, and erratic thinking by guiding them into thinking and learning the history of other
“On Racist Speech” an article written by Charles R. Lawrence III speaks about the controversy because of what the First Amendment abides to, and how it’s right to the people is being abused through racial prejudice speech. Lawrence uses logic, ethos, and examples to emphasize his point and Lawrence states his thesis when he clearly states his opposition of the racist and prejudice speech being protected by the First Amendment. Lawrence uses the case “Brown v. the Board of Education” as an example to give his readers a situation to show how the people having freedom to use racial speech was causing uncomfortable environment for those receiving these comments.
Although some like Conor Friedersdorf, of the Atlantic, categorized students as “intolerant bullies, (34)” meaning that the reasons for protests were not really reasons at all. Chang argues that the issues students are expressing need to be improved upon as if not, we will continue to go round and round in this vicious cycle. The addition of the apartheid in South Africa backs up Chang’s argument as there is a consensus of it being a serious issue. This explains why he included this piece of history and how it relates to college campuses. Encouraging critics to listen to students, just as Meyer did to those of color, is the only way to prevent today's youth from bring up the same issues in future years. Just as Chang predicted, the next school year brought protesters to hundreds of colleges and universities. What happened at Mizzou was just the beginning of a country wide movement for racial justice on campuses that hasn’t stopped
Lawrence’s reasons, “Carefully drafted university regulations would bar the use of words as assault weapons…”(67). The education system holds primarily the younger generations who one day will run this country. We want to encourage a nation that sticks to the values that are expected and continue to have an integrated society. I agree with Lawrence that regulations need to be added, but why stop at just the education system? If an enforcement is going to be made on what can be said verbally through hate speech in one area, I believe that it should be present in all aspects such as the work field, public places, and media. There is not a way to make a strong government ban on the use of every form of hate speech but if larger industries start declaring it unacceptable it will set an example for society to follow. No one should feel as if they do not belong in a certain area or place due to their ethnicity or race. The most current situation could be Americans discriminating against Muslims and relating them to ISIS, this may not seem like segregation but it is discriminating and separating someone due to assumptions about them due to their background that they cannot change. Slowly but surely, if one American steps up and takes action our nation has the power to change hate speech forever and encourage a peaceful
College is full of new experiences, new people, and new communities, and many universities encourage the exchange of new ideas and diversity among students. This year, the University of Chicago sent out a letter to all of its incoming freshmen informing them that in keeping with their beliefs of freedom of expression and healthy discussion and debate, the school would not provide “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings”. Senior Sophie Downes found this letter to be misleading in many ways, including in the definitions of safe spaces and trigger warnings, as well as the issues it was addressing. Downes claims that the letter was misrepresenting the school, but also was using the letter as a sort
Charles R. Lawrence intended audience in his article “On Racist Speech” is college students and universities. His sense of tone is forthcoming. Lawerence word choice sets the tone by using the words conspicuous,dissenter, and bigot. The article gives examples of how universities do not protect minority college students. Lawrence states that universities should protect their students He also gives an example of how universities have tried to have rules to ban racist speech yet they have proven ineffective in stopping racial slurs. The regulations have not stopped the verbal brutality yet it has stopped the occurrences of physical fights. He mentions how students do not have any need to be hurt verbally.
When the word “prejudice” is mentioned in public conversation, undertones of anger and unfairness usually accompany it. Prejudice is often defined as a predetermined opinion not based on fact,experience, or knowledge. Many acts of inequalities and discriminative wrong-doings in history can be traced back to being a result of prejudice.So what place does a concept with such a negative connotation have in an institution of higher education where students and faculty of varying cultures and backgrounds come together to learn? Instinctively, a good number of people would answer that prejudice and its negative consequences have no place in such an environment. However, a contradicting opinion is expressed in an article written by Jonathan Rauch titled “In Defense of Prejudice” . In this article, Rauch expresses his dissatisfaction with the
In the editorial “Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt examine the political correctness on college campuses and how it may be hurting students’ mental health. They explain by allowing campuses to discuss words, ideas, and subjects that can cause discomfort or give offense can provide positive attributes like helping students to produce better arguments and more productive discussions over differences. Does Lukianoff and Haidt provide sufficient evidence about how college campuses should raise attention about the need to balance freedom of speech to help students in their future and education to lead the reader to agree with their argument? The answer is yes,
Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom becomes limited via “free speech zones.” Free Speech Zones are areas allocated for the purpose of free speech on campus. These zones bypass our constitutional right to freedom of speech by dictating where and when something can be said, but not what can be said.
middle of paper ... ... Violence on College Campuses," (Baltimore: National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, 1990). Fox, James and Jack Levin Overkill: Mass Murder and Serial Killing Exposed (New York: Dell, 1996). Freeman, Steven, "Hate Crime Laws: Punishment Which Fits the Crime," Annual Survey of American Law (New York: New York University School of Law, 1993); pp.
What if a college sponsors an activity, such as an “ugliest woman contest” where boys dress up as girls, and someone in the contest were to dress up as Aunt Jemima? At most public colleges and universities, such a display would be protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have to worry about people doing such things? Wouldn’t the world be better if people had some common sense and displayed some respect for others by not doing or saying things that would alienate or offend other cultures, races, lifestyles, or sexes? Unfortunately, this is not the case and many public colleges and universities are caught in a balancing act between preserving their students’ First Amendment rights, while also trying to preserve the rights of their students to live and learn in an environment that is free from offensive language or actions.
Some colleges are considering speech codes and regulations on campus due to allegations of racist speech and harassment. Although the reasons are legitimate concerns, these codes should not be placed on students because they do not only violate The First Amendment, but also promote administrative abuse of power, along with causing students to self-censor their speech, while teaching them to hide and or suppress their unpopular beliefs. There are some such as, Cinnamon Stillwell and Charles R. Lawrence III, which are in favor of speech codes because they consider some of the actions a form of harassment. While others such as, Harvey B. Silverglate, Greg Lukianoff, and Howard M. Wasserman oppose the codes and regulations because they insist that
When the topic of hate and bias crime legislation is brought up two justifications commonly come to mind. In her article entitled “Why Liberals Should Hate ‘Hate Crime Legislation” author Heidi M. Hurd discusses the courts and states views that those who commit hate and bias crimes ought to be more severely punished. She takes into consideration both sides of the argument to determine the validity of each but ultimately ends the article in hopes to have persuaded the reader into understanding and agreeing with her view that laws concerning the punishment of hate and bias laws should not be codified. Hate crime is described as a violent, prejudice crime that occurs when a victim is targeted because of their membership in a specific group. The types of crime can vary from physical assault, vandalism, harassment or hate speech. Throughout the article Hurd tried to defend her view and explain why there should be no difference of punishment for similar crimes no matter the reason behind it. Her reason behind her article came from the law that President Obama signed in 2009 declaring that crimes committed with hatred or prejudice should have more sever punishments. While the court has their own views to justify their reasoning behind such decisions, in the article Hurd brings up points and facts to prove the wrongfulness of creating such a law. However, though Hurd has made her views clear in the following essay I will discuss reasons why the penalties are justifiable, why they should receive the same degree of punishment, less punishment and my personal view on the topic.
College campuses have always been the sites where students can express their opinions without fear. There have been many debates about the merits of allowing free speech on campus. Some students and faculties support allowing free speech on campus, while others believe that colleges should restrict free speech to make the college’s environment safer for every student. Free speeches are endangered on college campuses because of trigger warning, increasing policing of free speech, and the hypersensitivity of college students.
The First Amendment is known as the most protected civil liberty that protects our right to freedom of speech. There has been much controversy regarding hate speech and laws that prohibit it. These problems have risen from generation to generation and have been protested whether freedom of speech is guaranteed. According to our text book, By the People, hate speech is defined as “hostile statements based on someone’s personal characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.” Hate speech is a topic of issue for many people and their right’s, so the question is often proposed whether hate speech should be banned by government.
Today we have looked at the problem known as hate crimes and the varied causes which keep it in existence. We have also discussed some solutions to this act of hate.