In 1969, Des Moines Iowa school districts, it was fine to wear the iron cross to support Nazis but it was not okay to wear arm bands to support stopping the Vietnam War. (“Tinker V. Des Moines” 3) When students wore the arm bands they were asked to go home and suspended from school. This set up the case for Tinker v. Des Moines independent school district, a case that would determine the right of free speech for students. This case can be better understood by studying the Des Moines independent schools, students and their policies, examining the decision of the court and, reflecting on how it has influenced society today.…
Des Moines court case was written by Justice Abe Fortas. Its contents contribute to the ideas of those who believe certain kinds of speech should not be prohibited within an educational setting. In this majority opinion statement, Justice Abe Fortas reveals that there is an “absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate [students’] speech” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District by Justice Abe Fortas par. 9). Because of this absence of reason, students should be allowed to express their opinions and views on topics of their choice. Justice Abe Fortas justifies his statement by referencing another court case that says “school officials cannot suppress ‘expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend’ Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749” (par. 9).…
In “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, the author, Derek Bok shows how expressing yourself falls under the First Amendment, whether it is on a private college campus or public college campus. He further explains that just because it is protected by law does not mean that it is “right, proper, or civil. Bok goes on to show how censoring freedom of speech would cause people to “test the limits” to gain more attention than is needed and if dealt with in the proper manner, behaviors such as displaying a Confederate flag or a swastika in rebuttal of the flag can be avoided. Freedom of expression is a right and should not…
This article talked about how the students of UC Berkeley were protesting against a speech being given at their school, and how the sponsors of this group were forced to pay $15,000 in security fees. Then on top of that fee the school paid an additional $600,000 to create cemented barriers and have armed forces on campus during the meeting. Personally I feel these precautions were unnecessary however due to the way students were reacting it had to be done. Another subject brought up in the article was the fact that 44 percent of students said that the First Amendment does not protect "hate speech", 51 percent said that they would be in favor of students speaking out against a speaker "known for making offensive and hurtful statements" and 19 percent of students said the use of violence against controversial speakers is acceptable. This information frustrates me because freedom of speech is black and white, personal opinions shouldn’t interfere with our rights.…
He goes on to discuss the fact that the display of these flags triggered a lot of controversy on the university campus, over the freedom of speech. He recalled that some of the students expressed that school administration should not allow the symbols because they are offensive to others. He asserts that some of the students felt the flag was the representation of oppressive and deeply unpleasant time in American history. He also mentions the students who felt that the symbols represented free speech and should be allowed.…
As Roger Rosenblatt endured in countries of constrained inhabitants, “the secret publication of books, the pirated music, the tricky subversive lines of poetry read at vast gatherings of tens of thousands. And the below the surface comedy” (503) will continuously arise no matter the discouragement present. In a country founded on its freedoms, the retraction of any of those privileges will be met with extreme adversity. Moreover, “since free is the way people's minds were made to be” (Rosenblatt 502) the restriction of verbal expression will only cause riots and outrage. Currently, various universities and colleges have faced the backlash of unjust speech limitations on their campuses. One student attending a college in Arizona prepares to sue the school for, “her school’s so-called “speech zone,” arguing the policy “severely limited” her right to free speech and due process” (Harkness). Reactions to a decrease in the liberty to speak freely induces immediate retaliation and hardship, in addition, to being entirely unnecessary. To keep the peace and stability, the United States must keep the freedom of speech as it was intended to be used, freely.…
In the debate over whether speech codes should be enforced or not on university campuses, the opponents conclude that university’s should not enforce a hate speech code because it impedes academic freedom. On the other side of the debate, the supporters conclude that it is a university’s responsibility to enforce hate speech code for an equal education opportunity. In this essay, I will conclude that hate speech should be regulated by a code enforced by the university because of the protection it offers. In the article titled, “Speech Codes Threaten the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses” Eugene Volokh concludes that colleges should enforce a speech code.…
If our legal reality truly reflected our political rhetoric about liberty, Americans and especially American college and university students would be enjoying a truly remarkable freedom to speak and express controversial ideas at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Virtually every public official declares a belief in "freedom of speech." Politicians extol the virtues of freedom and boast of America’s unique status as a nation of unfettered expression. Judges pay homage to free speech in court opinions. Even some fringe parties’ communists and fascists who would create a totalitarian state if they were in power have praised the virtues of the freedom they need for their survival. Few individuals speak more emphatically on behalf of freedom of speech and expression, however, than university administrators, and few institutions more clearly advertise their loyalty to this freedom than universities themselves. During the college application process, there is a very high probability that you received pamphlets, brochures, booklets, and catalogs that loudly proclaimed the university’s commitment to "free inquiry," "academic freedom," "diversity," "dialogue," and "tolerance."You may have believed these declarations, trusting that both public and private colleges and universities welcome all views, no matter how far outside the mainstream, because they want honest difference and debate.…
As American people, we know that we are entitled to certain rights according to the constitution; one of which is freedom of speech. In Civility and Its Discontents, Leslie Epstein explores the limits and contradictions of this much cherished right when considering whether he would expel a student who wrote racial slurs in the dorm rooms of a University if it was up to him. He discusses this situation and topics that stem from it in an analytical yet somewhat emotionally involved tone and makes the reader reflect on the wide range of information presented about the issues of political correctness, freedom of speech, expulsion, and racism.…
In the debate over censorship of hate speech on college campuses, the opponents conclude that colleges should censor hate speech on campus because minorities have the civil right to equal enjoyment of education, free of harassment. On the other side of the debate, the supporters conclude that we should not censor hate speech on campus because students have a right to academic freedom. In this essay I will conclude that colleges should not censor hate speech.…
Even though there has been a large increase in the number of hate speech codes in colleges and universities, the increase in the amount of hate speech incidents across the nation shows that these guidelines have be ineffective. Ben Wildavsky the author of “Rethinking Campus Speech Codes”, talks about how “campus wars over race and gender have hardly died down”, and that the “speech codes have done little to ease tension” (415). Hate speech codes attempt to create a safer more politically correct environment on college campuses by setting forth guidelines for students to follow, but they are failing miserably. The guidelines are so vague that “several major universities have been held unconstitutional”, for trying to write campus speech codes. For instance: In 1989, a federal judge overturned parts of the University of Michigan’s speech code after a biopsychology graduate student said he feared the rules would prevent him from discussing controversial theories about biological differences among the sexes and races (Wildavsky 415). Making students follow the hate speech codes is a violation of their First Amendment which entitles…