More handpicked essays just for you.
Protecting freedom of expression on the campus summary
Free speech on college campuses
Freedom of speech on campus
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I chose to examine the ways in which safe spaces, as well as trigger warnings and microaggressions, violate free speech on college campuses which led me to my question: Do safe spaces limit other students’ and professors’ rights to free speech? The article I originally read argued that safe spaces and the oversensitivity of students are limiting their academic growth. Oversensitivity is preventing professors from teaching or saying what they want, and safe spaces are keeping students from hearing the ideas of others, whether or not they agree with them. Three of the additional five sources I looked at had the same perspective. A common understanding between these sources was that “universities are, first and foremost, designed to encourage
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
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with us.
In Roxane Gay 's op-ed, "The Seduction of Safety, on Campus and Beyond", she states, "Rather than use trigger warnings, I try to provide students with the context they will need to engage productively in complicated discussions", and this is exactly what I am talking about. People who understand that freedom of speech does not have to be taken away in order to stop "triggering" people. Communication is key and freedom of speech is our given right that allows us to communicate our thoughts and feelings. When I searched, "safe spaces in universities" on google, all I could find was article after article of people criticizing safe spaces and giving reasons why they should not happen on college campuses. The most used reason, was a reason that Shulevitz used as well, that safe spaces create ignorance in the growing teenager and become problematic. While this may be true, I feel I should of found more articles like Gay 's, emphasizing with victims and understanding the need for safety sometimes, but without ignorance. The world is scary, hurtful, and breaks you as you grow older. Safe spaces are needed for comfort, they can bring peace, and give someone a person who understands. It 's wrong to put college students behind a door and shut them in so they are not "triggered" by someone 's opinion, but it 's also wrong to not acknowledge that sometimes, people just need to take a break from all the speech in the world and re-cope themselves to
According to The Coddling of the American Mind, trigger warnings and microaggressions confine professors’ and well-educated adults’ unalienable right of speech; furthermore, they can impact one’s health. Protecting rights have a unison consensus; the authors unite them and the audience together to persuade the well-educated adults to protest the use of trigger warnings and microaggressions. While concluding that vindictive protectiveness is the reason for trigger warnings and microaggressions Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt state, “A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety.” (45) The word “policing” holds a negative connotation implying regulation, and no one wants their first amendment right of free speech stolen from them. Also the idea that trigger warnings and microaggressions may lead to depression and anxiety gives more logical reasoning to end trigger warnings and microaggressions in higher level education. When the authors specify the change that colleges should make, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt write their idea of the purpose of college, “Rather than
Why do schools NOT notify the police when a violent disturbance occurs? One would assume that when there is an assault or threat upon a student, the police would be the first people to be notified. When there is violence, or threats of violence against students in an academic setting, information about the threats and the troublesome student should be shared with the police. But Universities usually do not provide this information to the police. Lynn Daggett, a Professor at the Gonzaga University School of Law, states, “Schools struggle with whether, when, and how to involve police, both when students appear to present a threat to others, as in high profile cases, and also when the school suspects a student of criminal behavior” (Daggett). Although police are available and willing to be involved in school disturbances, schools do not involve the police more often than they should and cannot or will not give certain records about their students to the police.
This occurs even when the regulations arent enforced souly because they fear being punished for what they may say. As shown in Silverglate and Lukianoffs essay, some campuses go to great extents when giving students permission to give free speeches. They claim that “as long as the policy exists, the threat of enfocement remains real and will inevitably influence some peoples speech” (636). This is a valid argument because they then proceed by saying that The First Amendment calls it a clinging effect. Another effect of these regulations would be that colleges are teaching their students that their opinions and beliefs should not be shared when they are even slightly controversial. Wasserman argues that word choice is an “essential component of free-speech protection”(640) because they allow one to express him or herself
Another new idea that has surfaced which as potential to be harmful for personal growth, especially at this age, is the creation “safe places” being implemented across many college campuses. Like trigger warnings, there are certain situations that may call for a “safe place,” but as the President of the University of Oklahoma points out, college “…is not a 'safe place, ' but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others.” (Stump) In other words, we are limiting this generation negatively by not allowing them to be exposed to other opinions other than their own. By making colleges “safe places,” it ultimately infers that the working world is a “safe place,” which could be very misleading
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.
Universities throughout America are debating implementing safe zones for students. These safe zones are areas where college students can go in order to essentially be shielded away from different opinions that counteract with their own which they may find to be off-putting or offensive. These safe zones are meant to “protect” students, but in reality, it is simply delaying their growth as well as defeating the whole reason as to why many people even attend college. Most students attend college pursuing higher education and seeking self-growth. The idea of safe spaces would take away from this goal that students have when they are attending universities.
Studies from universities such as UCLA, show, “ emotional harm is the equal intensity to that experienced by the body, and even long-lasting and traumatic.” ( Rosenbaum, 173) a university like to claim their reasoning to limit free speech on campus is to protect students them physically and emotionally by essentially limited their first amendment rights. That is not from of protection limiting students rights is not a long term solution. It is true that freedom of speech unconditionally is taking for granted when slander is direct to aggressively attacking someone which might lead to physical harm. It is a good thing that campuses and employers take action to prevent such events from happing. But at the cost of limiting the first amendment right is not the way to go. Most employees working in the private sector generally have no right to free speech, for those who break company policy can deal with disciplinary consequences and lost their job which is why most do not choose to fight against not have their first amendment right exercised. In 2010 a student by the name of Amanda Tatro poses a very controversial blog on social media facebook when the school found out about it. They took immediate action, amends “ criminal investigation concluded that Tatro had no intent to harm anyone, but the university imposed disciplinary charges anyway, including a failing grade and mandatory psychiatric exam.” ( LoMonte) even though Amanda was not on campus physically nor did she target any special person emotionally or physically, the campus power over limiting her right to free speech resulted in bad consequences for her actions which led to no harm. This is not right, an American citizen got in trouble for expression their first ardent right setting right at home causing no harm to no one. It is true slander
As I first stated, safe spaces are made to prevent prejudice against marginalized communities, and bring groups together. I worry that implementing these safe spaces could silence students with different beliefs. Students come to school with the beliefs they picked up from their parents, friends, culture of their hometown, and so many more influences. College is a great time to learn more about the world and be near many different beliefs and ideas. A child who is not allowed to speak his
A somewhat concerning example of our society's need to always subdue our voices in efforts not to be offensive or triggering are “safe spaces” that are now being set up on college campuses (Source D). These “safe spaces” were intended to grant students a place to cope with issues that they might be having in a calm and non-triggering environment. These spaces have instead manifested into locations where many subjects of deep discussion are unable to take place. These places have become a blockade for free speech and discussion due to the restrictions it places on material that is deemed “triggering”. Although it is helpful to warn individuals, who have previously been exposed to a traumatic experience, of potentially triggering content, it has instead been used to stifle learning. An example of how ridiculous political correctness has become is how a debate regarding abortion in Christ Church, at Oxford University, was canceled due to a vocal minority of students who claimed that the two debaters, both males, could not discuss this topic (Source C). According to the students, it was an outrage that “two human beings ‘who do not have uteruses’” could have a debate abortion. Furthermore, the students went as far to say that the debate would “threaten the mental safety of Oxford students”. Even though this was a vocal minority of students,
Create a Safe Space in the Online Classroom, Pam Van Londen stresses the importance of practicing proper communication skills and creating a safe space online. Van Londen states “when you communicate online, you cannot provide eye contact and body language to help explain yourself, so your message may be misunderstood” (Van Londen 2017). Misunderstandings can waste time and affect people negatively. It is crucial to support others’ opinions and feelings in order to maintain civility and the integrity of the online safe space.
“College campuses have become fascist colonies of anti-American hate speech, hypersensitivity, speech codes, banded words and prohibited scientific inquiry.” (Ann Coulter). Safe-space is a term used to show that an educator, instructive establishment or under study does not endure free speech as a result of students being over-sensitive or feel offended. Shockingly as a consequence of safe-spaces, free speech has become endangered and intolerable. A speech code is a principle and regulation that bans speech afar from the strict laws of speech, their function is to stop badgering, criticism, defamation, and hate speech. These types of codes are most commonly used in Universities and private companies. Unfortunately, these speech codes have thwarted the urge to seek truth as well as influenced academic freedom, made students’ self-censor themselves, made the youth more fragile and oversensitive.