Is Campus Hate Speech Code the right way to give an equal value to all students? In recent years, many public schools, colleges and universities started to implement hate speech code due to struggle with discrimination and harassment in campuses. In Campus Hate Speech Codes, authored by Gerard Uelmen, it is explained clearly that speech code is morally just response to campus intolerance; thus, it does not solve the discriminatory problems on campuses completely and maintain the balance between individual and group rights. Nevertheless, some claims mentioned in the article about the benefits of campus hate speech code are discussed correctly, while several arguments of speech code opponents did not supported sufficiently. In Campus Hate Speech
However, to prevent students from showing discriminatory behavior by implementation of hate speech code is indeed to protect all students’ fundamental rights fairly. Though the author claims that often offensive and unpopular behavior does not cause serious harm, it might hurt students’ feeling and even lead to some physiological problems. The aim of campus hate speech code is to create a respectful and equal educational environment to all students. Moreover, it is mentioned that speech code makes students afraid to speak in classes, whereas being exposed to negative behavior in campus causes any student to feel uncomfortable among
Correctly, hate speech codes is an efficient way to prevent offensive incidents and protect all students’ rights in order to study fairly. In addition, the effect of discriminatory harassment is much more than hurt feelings so that the harmed students hinder their ability to compete fairly in educational arena. According to the article Understanding Hate Speech as a Communication Phenomenon: Another View On Campus Speech Code Issues, "Speech codes maintain that hate speech inevitably creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for education and university-related work.” In other words, by implementing speech codes in campuses, students truly show their capacity to earn an education in respectful environment. Notably, minority students are more likely to observe pressure by the superiority of students and realize that a violent response to fighting words will result in a risk to their own life, so, they are forced to remain silent. Indeed, speech codes are not as harmful to freedom of speech as the opponents argue, because most of them were made for the purpose of preventing speech that is not exchangeable and not protected as pure speech. In this sense, special exceptions for the content-neutral principle should be allowed on
Throughout America, people place a high value in their freedom of speech. This right is protected by the first Amendment and practiced in communities throughout the country. However, a movement has recently gained momentum on college campuses calling for protection from words and ideas that may cause emotional discomfort. This movement is driven mainly by students who demand that speech be strictly monitored and punishments inflicted on individuals who cause even accidental offense. Greg Lukianoff and Johnathan Haidt discuss how this new trend affects the students mentally and socially in their article The Coddling of the American Mind published in The Atlantic Monthly. Lukianoff and Haidt mostly use logical reasoning and references to
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.
Today, there are student laws regarding disruption that were brought about because of the court case (Sternburg). If what is said is not disruptive in the classroom, create chaos, or invade other 's rights, it is considered acceptable (McPherson 86). The students involved in the Tinker case were lucky since they were protected because they were not disruptive, nor was there offensive speech (“Tinker v. Des Moines: Establishing the Right”). It is important for students to avoid disruptions to prevent offensive speech that could be taken as
In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons that racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and what he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue.
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
Some people don’t find anything wrong with verbally abusing another human. Some world leaders have participated in hate speech, hate crimes, or genocide. Hitler is known for his merciless killing of minorities, mostly Jews, in Eastern Europe. The founder of the United States, Christopher Columbus, killed many Indians because he felt he was superior to them. Hate speech obviously leads to hate crimes and keeps humans separated. Also when following the laws correctly, hate speech is not allowed. These are all reasons why I am against hate speech.
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.
So, what is college hate speech? According to Griffin, Sullivan, and Robertson (2010), hate speech is
When discussing hate speech one has to address fighting words. Fighting words are words that the Supreme Court believes that even the mere utterance of them will inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace. The court also believes these words are unnecessary for anyone to use, and that even if they were not used someone could still express their ideas.
In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into
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.
People may advocate that if there were no safe zones, students would not have a place to go where they could be protected from exposure to a hate crime. Contrary to this statement, any adept college campus should be able to effectively distinguish between students who are expressing their personal opinions and students who having a goal of undermining others. If universities are able to appropriately draw the line between discriminating and expression of opinion, then safe zones become unnecessary. Because the scale of what would be considered discriminating can be questionable and line is hard to draw, people have to take it into their own hands to be considerate of their peers. With respect and the mutual goal of personal growth, it would be possible to eliminate the idea of safe
There are many who believe hate crime should be punished more severely since it ‘’has the potential to cause greater harm.’’ (Hate Crime Laws, 2014) Hate crimes, like racial discrimination, have unfortunately been a part of this country for centuries, racial discrimination was rampant in the 19th and 20th century, but mostly in the south; many segregation laws were created at the time ‘’that banned African Americans from voting, attending certain schools, and using public accommodations. ’’ (Hate Crime Laws, 2014)