In class, we have been talking a lot about free speech and when, if ever, it should be limited. I was recently reading an article about how free speech is limited on college campuses and some of the information that I read really surprised me. There are still some colleges that contain areas known as free speech zones. One specific example is at the University of Cincinnati; their free speech zone took up just .1% of the school property. Students were told that if they were protesting or showing other forms of free speech outside of the zone, they would be charged for trespassing. Thankfully, the court proved the zone to be unconstitutional, but still, the idea that colleges still have free speech zones is jaw dropping to me. For my perilous times project, my group is studying the Vietnam War. During this time there were many protests happening on college campuses, which ultimately contributed to the hastening of our withdrawal from Vietnam. In my opinion, especially on college campuses, the whole school should be a free speech zone, not just one small area, unless the well-being of the student body or the institution are at risk. Other actions, besides creation of free speech zones, are also done to limit a student's first amendment rights. For example, there was a resolution passed in California that bans students from making anti-Semitic speeches. At Christopher Newport University, students were not allowed to protest a visit from Paul Ryan. At Ohio University, a girl was banned from putting a sign expressing her political views on her door and at Yale, a student was not allowed to wear a shirt with provocative language on it. As Greg Lukianoff wrote in the New York Times, "In a study of 392 campus speech codes last year, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, where I work, found that 65 percent of the colleges had policies that in our view violated the Constitution’s guarantee of the right to free speech." This to me is ridiculous and I do not think that authorities should be able to hold people's own rights against them.
As we have seen in class, many of the acts formed during wartime seem very general, and the same goes for many rules that are made limiting a student's free speech on college campuses. For example, as Greg Lukianoff states, "Harvard freshmen were pressured by campus officials to sign an oath promising to act with “civility” and “inclusiveness.”" What exactly is meant here by civilty and inclusiveness is impossible to tell, but to me it just seems like the most vague way to tell students that they better stick with the status quo, or else they will be punished. Especially during a time when students are in college and, as many call it, "finding themselves", they should without a doubt have a right to voice their own opinion, no matter what it may be. What do you think of all these limitations on college campuses? Are they fair or immoral?
Lilly, great connections to class! While I do agree a lot of what colleges are doing are unconstitutional, such as the free speech zone in University of Cincinnati, we do have to consider that a college is still a school. What I mean is that schools have the right to go against some amendments, such as being able to check the property of students without a warrant, or ban a student from wearing clothing that has provocative language in order to keep the school environment safe. Therefore, colleges, a school, has similar rights. However, college is tricky. College is a school, but it also, as you mentioned above, a time for "finding yourself" or a place of becoming an adult, and as such the balance between deciding what is considered unconstitutional or what is just taking precaution for the school becomes less black and white than before. I would argue that the school should be more leaned to the constitutional side, and less toward the school side, because these students are young adults, and thus should be treated that way.
ReplyDelete