Derek Bok Protecting Freedom Of Expression On Campus

Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus

In the world today, Freedom of Speech is taken to a different level than what one may imply verbally. With social media, political debates, and the outpour of sexual orientation the First Amendment is exercised in its full capacity. Protecting Freedom of Expression on the campus is an article written by Derek Bok expressing his concerns regarding the display of a confederate flag hung from a window on the campus of Harvard University. The Confederate flag to some is a symbol of slavery and to others it is a symbol of war, or perhaps known as the “Battle Flag”. In this paper one will review Bok’s opinion of the First Amendment, clarity of free speech in private versus public institutions and the actions behind the importance of ignoring or prohibiting such communications according to the First Amendment.

Bok begins his article explaining the struggle universities face concerning free speech and how important it is to avoid racial tension amongst the students.

He appeals to the concerns of the audience by addressing the First Amendment mentioning the fact that “Speech protected under the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil (4).” The opinion of Bok conveys the difference between what is displayed as insensitive of ones beliefs and causes others to be uncomfortable in their environment of higher learning. He argues that the students who displayed the Confederate flag had to have known that their actions would be upsetting and offensive to some students. As a result feelings are involved and could very well affect the community of which the students reside. By pointing this out Bok hopes to persuade universities to come up with a better way to exercise the First Amendment and avoid racial tension amongst the student

body.
The writer creates a confused tone when discussing free speech in private versus public institutions by making the statement “Although it is unclear to what extent the First Amendment is enforceable against private institutions, I have difficulty understanding why a university such as Harvard should have less free speech than the surrounding society-or than a public university (9). Public universities are considered to be larger and more diverse than a private university, and students may feel some sense of comfort while in a larger student population. Bok argues the power of censorship as dangerous and extremely difficult when deciding if a particular communication is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weight the degree of offensiveness against the potential value of communication (10). Once the rights of an individual’s Freedom of speech is taken away riots or even protest will be demonstrated on campus. Bok tries to prove to the university that no matter what rules are put in place at private or public institutions the offenders will try other ways to insult and those offending will magnify their amendment rights with negative attention. If Bok wants a change to occur, triggering the emotions of the reader is the best strategy because it gives the audience an idea of what it feels like from both those who are offended and the party whom is the offenders.
The author’s last argument suggests “rather than prohibit such communication, with all the resulting risks, it would be better to ignore them (13).” Bok tries to warn the faculty of the potential risk in hopes that by ignoring certain communications concerning the right to speak freely will fix the problem. Ignoring the situation of disrespect from hanging the confederate flag poses an issue with the university. One would assume that if the issue is ignored rather than acknowledged this could cause conflict with the students who are offended by the hanging of the flag. One positive recommendation Bok made is to speak to those who perform insensitive acts and try to help them understand the effects of their actions on others (13). His goal is to give options to discipline rather than prohibit or ignore such communications. As a result faculty members took time to educate and persuade rather than resort to ridicule or intimidate students. One would believe that persuasion has a more lasting and beneficial effect if both sides of the argument are understood.
If Freedom of Expression is a way a person can express themselves without penalty then there wouldn’t be a need for the First Amendment right. Throughout this essay Bok tries to persuade the audience to believe some forms of free speech should not be protected. In the beginning of his essay Bok focuses on what is fair for both the student body and the members of the community. He continues on by sharing his views on the best way to communicate without offending others. Bok gives suggestions on how the university can handle disciplinary actions without punishing the entire student body as well as explaining how other universities have handled similar situation in hope of resolving the conflict. Bok also gives creditability to the Supreme Court rulings by providing evidence from his research that free speech is applied to all agencies including public universities. In addition, Bok concludes by suggesting ignoring such communications rather than prohibiting them. Through the use of persuasive language, Bok was able to leave the audience with effective ways to resolve and understand negative actions made by inappropriate communication.