Free Speech on College Campuses.

¶ … free speech on college campuses. The writer argues that free speech should never be banned or regulated as it is a protected right under the United States constitution. There were four sources used to complete this paper.

Free speech is protected in America by the very first amendment of the United States constitution; however that amendment has been tested thousands if not hundreds of thousands of time since the nation's birth. Free speech is a concept that has been taken to court in the effort to ban speech that others may find offensive, protect others from racially motivated speeches, stop speech that might be perceived as dangerous or inciting and many other reasons. While most people have had things said to and around them that they found unpleasant or hurtful the constitutional right to that free speech must be protected.

Free speech in the school setting has recently become a hotbed of debate in light of the effort to keep schools from allowing racially motivated or otherwise non-compliant types of speeches to occur.

While speech that is hurtful or unpopular may be unpleasant to hear the constitution must protect the right for it to be said. If we as a people start to ban speech in this country we will begin a slippery slope that could end up in a situation reminiscent of what started the Holocaust.

America's base is founded in the ability to be free in thought and speech as long as we do not physically or legally harm anyone. The importance of protecting those rights cannot be underscored enough. Free speech always has been and must remain one of our most basic rights.

Trying to ban or regulate speech on America's college campuses will not only defy the constitutionally protected rights of those students it will also prevent them from growth as they learn to navigate their way through society.

The Subjectivity of it All

One of the most compelling reasons that speech on college campuses should remain unregulated and not banned can be seen in the early 1990's case of Eden Jacobowitz. In this case Jacobowitz was trying to complete an English paper when approximately a dozen college females in the room above him began to stomp and shout. After about 20 minutes of the noise Jacobowitz shouted at them to stop and referred to the group as water buffalo (Hinds, 1993).

The group immediately filed a formal complaint with the school alleging that when he called them water buffalo he was using a racial epitaph which was forbidden in the college by laws. Jacobowitz alleged he did not mean it as a racial slur and eventually the punishment he was assigned was lifted, but he later sued the school for mental and emotional distress in its handling of the situation.

This is a classic case of why college speech should not be banned or regulated.

The first problem with this case was the fact that the college immediately believed the term water buffalo was racially motivated though it has never been used or known to be a racial slur in the past. In fact Jacobowitz maintained that the name was one commonly used in his heritage to gently chide another (Hinds, 1993).

This brings the possibility to the table that it was Jacobowitz who was being punished for his racial or ethnic background by being punished for the use of the term.

The weight of having to decipher each perceived slur by every person who has a complaint filed against them is too time consuming to consider. In addition college students for the most part are adults and as adults they are protected by the entire constitution which includes freedom of speech (Hinds, 1993).

In addition there is a problem when colleges try to regulate free speech as was seen on the same campus later when angry Black students tossed out all of the college newspaper copies on campus because it held a column they did not agree with from a racial standpoint. Where does one draw the line? Is it only okay to punish a perceived insult against Blacks but not okay to punish a perceived insult against Whites by throwing out the newspapers?

In an earlier case another man was criminally charged for speaking his mind when he stood on a street in New Hampshire an declared those not belonging to the same religious faith as he did as racketeers and other things (Chaplinksy, 1943).

He was arrested because the town had a law where one could not stand in a public street and scream at others in insulting manner.

While it is tempting to understand why Walter Chaplinsky was arrested and most people can understand the annoyance his speech must have caused, it was a law that should have been repealed.

Freedom of speech is such a fundamental right ingrained for more than 250 years that it needs to be protected even when the majority of listeners do not like or agree with what is being said.

Another case, in 1952 brings to light a different issue with regards to freedom of speech. In that case the leader of a white supremacy group was arrested for distributing literature claiming that the Negro race lacked virtue and other important characteristics.

While freedom of speech should be protected, it is also important not to allow hate filled speeches to be distributed in writing that are filled with non-provable information that could ultimately harm a group of people because it may be taken as fact.

The Ultimate Decision

Case law on students' freedom of speech reveals a limited but constitutional precedent for hate speech regulations within the academic environment. Regulations restricting other forms of student speech have been upheld under the special characteristics argument, which emphasizes universities' liabilities as learning institutions. Under this argument, students are considered captive audiences, thus universities can legally act to avoid disruptions to the educational environment, which hate speech can do (Russell, 1997)."

As much as most individuals will agree that certain speech is hurtful to others society by and large has the ability to correct itself by ignoring or shunning those who insist on voicing opinions that are unpopular or hateful and college students are capable of the same shunning which in turn brings pressure to the speech giver to cease and desist.

We cannot pick and choose which part of the constitution we are going to protect as the entire document embodies what the founding fathers intended when they put it together.

The exception to free speech should always of course address threats to do someone bodily harm however, this leaves the arena of free speech and enters a criminal intent and the desire to take away one's constitutionally protected right to live without fear.

College students are a specific population and the fact that they were able to get through school and get into college speaks to their ability to make their own decisions when it comes to what to believe. Regulating or banning freedom of speech on campus attempts to remove their right and ability to hear different opinions which is part of what being in college is about. While some of the voiced opinions may be hurtful and hateful toward another group of individuals the right to speak those opinions must be reserved and protected.