Free speech and the exchange of ideas is undeniably a necessity in the college atmosphere. It allows students to think freely and apply the teachings of their professors and peers to their own personal morals and philosophies. However, when these rights to free thinking are infringed upon the student's ability to express their unique view on social, political, or religious issues is destroyed. Others argue free speech is the gateway to hate crimes and harassment. Overall, the Free speech debate has caused a great deal of commotion on college campuses, which includes protest, riots, and hate crimes. This has lead the administration at colleges to implement free speech codes to attack the problems as some sort of solution to the situation. Their “solution” has been proven to make the situation worse. In the end, not being a solution at all. When evaluating the current situation I could discover solutions to this social issue, that include creating precise speech codes against hate crimes and harassment, reevaluate the first amendment, promote the benefits of free speech, and warn people a world without it.
As according to Foundation for Individual Rights in Education or FIRE, have defined Free Speech codes as “any policy can be a speech code if it prohibits protected speech or expression, such as a harassment policy, a protest and demonstration policy.” The freedom of expression is not only verbal or written, but also absorbed. Speech codes in some colleges even prohibit a student’s right to read and absorb content that the school’s administrators deem as “racial harassment”, “controversial”, or “negative propaganda”, seen in Keith John Sampson’s case at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. Higher education institutions are where intelligent and knowledge-seeking individuals go to expand their horizons and open their minds to new and thought provoking ideas. However, when a speech code does not allow such learning to take place, the student’s mind is being deprived of its fundamental right to knowledge. A speech code that restricts a student’s ability to learn and absorb relevant information completely contradicts a college’s goal. All speech codes are vague in nature and are open to interpretation, allowing administrators, the creators of speech codes, to dictate what is acceptable. But the idea of what is ‘acceptable’ isn’t the same for everyone. However, in Broadrick vs Oklahoma in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that a policy must give a significant warning of what activities it proscribes and set out strict standards for those who must apply it, meaning that a policy is voided when it is too vague. Overall, since the speech codes are too vague causes any act against them will be voided. These speech codes don’t accomplish their goal of stopping harassment. Furthermore, the first solution is to alter and abolish these speech codes in order to actually address hate speech and harassment precisely and not just any form of speech that may or may not be offensive. To begin with, speech codes have always seemed the easy way out: the least costly, most self-righteous, but ultimately least effective way to address hate speech and harassment. There were approximately 75 hate speech codes in place at U.S. colleges and universities in 1990; by 1991, the number grew to over 300. School administrators institute codes primarily to foster productive learning environments in the face of rising racially motivated and other offensive incidents on many campuses. According to a recent study, reports of campus harassment increased 400 percent between 1985 and 1990. This proves that free speech codes cause more harm and make the situation worse. In other words, by focusing on obvious forms of harassment, free speech codes distract us from the structural and institutional changes necessary to truly address hate speech as larger social phenomena.
Outlined in our nation’s Constitution and considered one of the most fundamental of all human rights, it gives us the ability to express ourselves without government interference, restraint, or suppression. Free speech isn’t what it was 100 years ago. In order to modernize laws, we must evaluate what the first amendment truly means in order to decide what is protected so we can implement justified policies in colleges and not violate any constitutional rights. With the First Amendment comes the right to be wrong as well, an unequivocal skill when it comes to learning. Hate speech is the greatest threat to freedom of speech on college campuses, and the limitations colleges and universities put on student’s verbal freedoms are largely in place as efforts to avoid it. Religion, in particular, is a hot topic on campuses and it has an unfortunate tendency to become more aggressive and argumentative than universities would like. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object. According to a report done by FIRE, 62 percent of the 400 colleges reviewed have written policies in place to limit a college student’s right to free speech. 59 percent of united states colleges have proved that colleges have endorsed policies that FIRE group says impede on First Amendment rights. This can go on to show the need to reevaluate the first amendment. We are living in a different time since the constitution was developed and there is a new way to determine the laws. Freedom of speech was formulated by our founding fathers to insure that all citizens had a right to speak out against whatever injustices done to them without fear of punishment. However, the institutions that are responsible for the advancement of America’s future tax-paying citizens are denying them one of the most important rights of our country. Some universities are even digging their noses deeper and require their athletes to give them full access in their social networks. The right of privacy guaranteed to adults with no evidence of questionable activities is being violated within the very walls of our colleges and universities.
The third solution is to create a pro free speech group and to inform the public of the benefits to free speech. If people are more informed they can then be able to have a voice on something that is going to affect them. It allows each individual person to be unique and speak of our differences. These differences can vary from race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, religious and political beliefs, or other ideologies. Diversity will always disappear when people are forced to conform their thoughts and expression to a common societal perspective. Free speech is also needed to receive best education possible. We can deal with a variety of ideas and learn more about different subjects.
Lastly, they can see how life during crucial time without free speech is harmful. Colleges regularly houses future innovators, inventors, leaders, and pioneers of discovery. This is because institutions of higher education attract intellectuals, people who are willing to spend years and thousands of dollars to learn and utilize their acquired knowledge in the real world. If colleges cease being havens of free thought, free expression, and the free exchange of ideas, then the graduates they churn out will simply be robotic individuals shackled by a restricted and suppressed mind.
The debate over speech codes reminds us of the ongoing importance of free expression on campus and the often controversial nature of its practice. It will take time to develop a foolproof plan to solve this national dilemma, but based on current situation the solutions are to alter free speech codes, relate the 1st amendment and speech policies, get people involved in the cause, inform people of the benefits of free speech and the a terrible world without it.