College Censorship Rules

“Crippling the delivery of unpopular views is a terrible lesson to send to impressionable minds and future leaders” (Rampell 1). This quote taken from Catherine Rampell in her article “Free speech is flunking out on college campuses” explains that strict censorship rules hurt students whose minds are still developing. Rules on censorship in a college setting are supposed to protect the rights of students. Censorship is supposed to protect them from extremely hate filled speeches, newspaper articles, and other documents. For example, defamation, lies, and uses of extremely hateful name calling such as the word “nigger,” are all applicable to fair censorship rules. Today, the power of censorship has grown strong. In a scramble to not offend anyone,
Christine Lagarde, Condoleezza Rice, comedians, and other high profile speakers do not dare trek in a university according to Rampell (1). Rules on censorship block most of what comedians would like to say, but the rules also create a toxic environment within college society. They allow students to take offence and become angry over anything regarding race, religion, or gender, and many students love to take whatever opportunities they can find which is why high profile speakers do not wish to speak at universities. One wrong move and any person can step on a racial or religious landmine. High profile speakers often have very one sided opinions backed by facts on their beliefs which many college students are not capable of respectfully listening to. Comedians tend to step on landmines even though their thoughts are not hate oriented. They just want people to laugh, but college students can not take a joke. If comedians were to perform at universities, the rules would not allow most of their jokes in, and this is a fundamental breaking of the first
Rampell writes about a man named Bryan Stascavage. Stascavage wrote in an opinion column for a campus newspaper about his distaste for the tactics of the Black Lives Matter movement. His writing contained no name calling or stereotypes, but outrage erupted throughout the campus. The paper apologized and was defunded (1).The rules of the college infringe upon the first amendment right. Stascavage wrote his opinion in a section designated for opinions. Students needlessly took offense to his writing which was more fair than most opinion articles due to the fact that it lacked stereotypes and name calling, but as a result the paper was defunded. The paper should not have been required to apologize because Stascavage gave his fair opinion on a topic. The apology and the defunding both are an infringement on the first amendment all because the university did not approve of his