There is an ongoing controversy between the principle of free speech and anti-discrimination rules in society. People tend to believe that the universal freedom of speech allows them to share any views, even if they are generally intolerable. It is essential to recognize that both the freedom of expression and the right not to be discriminated against are important human rights, but hate speech is not. Since academic communication probably implies the most competence and subordination, it needs to establish restrictions and policies regarding discriminatory messages. In a professional or classroom community, the responsibility for a respectful environment outweighs the desire for free speech, so it is fair to condition self-expression on campus.
To begin with, the principle of free speech and the need to stop discrimination rules need to reconcile on a global scale. O’Sullivan’s (2019) article comments on this issue and provides an example of the Australian governmental act, which officially forbids any acts of public racial discrimination. Despite initial disapproval, everyone came to the agreement that protecting all members of society is a more important matter than ensuring free speech. Policies like that had to be established since, in the modern world, there are «views that a free society can’t tolerate» (O’Sullivan, 2019, para. 15). Since equality is one of those undeniable principles, rejecting it would be considered not a «mistaken view» but an «intolerably wrong view». Of course, in the ideal scenario, those radical opinions are entirely eliminated from society, but in reality, they still require specific control. Regarding the freedom of expression, although it would be unfair to restrict all the dissenting language, there are some particular concepts that should be regulated. It is safer and easier to make concessions to the free speech principle than compromise social integrity by allowing verbal discrimination.
With this conclusion in mind, a classroom rule forbidding disrespectful language is definitely rational. The right to speech freedom and academic freedom should not be mistaken for «the right to bigotry» (O’Sullivan, 2019, para. 22). Educational institutions strive to unite minds, establish an inclusive environment, and not create conflicts. Derogatory messages in classes might lead to continuous arguments that disrupt the learning process, especially if they resort to any kind of physical confrontation. Additionally, it is subordination that makes the basis of academic communication. This principle requires maintaining a respectful attitude to one’s colleagues or mentors and applying competent language; therefore, using any offensive, insulting expressions would be unacceptable in a classroom community. All these points make it evident that regulation of free speech is necessary for sustaining a productive learning environment. Students and institutions have mutual obligations in terms of preserving tolerance. As long as it is intended for the common good, teachers may set forth any rules and limitations they consider beneficial.
To summarize, anti-discrimination rules are an absolutely reasonable condition for the principle of free speech. Given that society values human equality very high and considers it an undeniable right, all the other laws need to protect it. Some countries have shown their approaches to banning discriminatory expressions, and educational institutions should provide those too. The academic environment should prevent the emergence of social conflicts and obtain adherence to subordination and competence in classroom communities. If those goals require limitations to public speeches, it would be fair to set those.
Reference
O’Sullivan, D. (2019). There are differences between free speech, hate speech and academic freedom – and they matter.The conversation. Web.