Introduction
The concept of freedom of speech has, in a sense, become a trademark of advanced civilization. Unfortunately, along with all the benefits it provides, it also brings controversy and ambiguity. Such is the case in Derek Bok’s article “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus.” In it, the author claims that restricting freedom of expression to prevent discriminatory practices is less beneficial than defending it.
However, Bok’s arguments are weaker than those used in Charles Lawrence’s work, which proposes seeking a balance between freedom and restriction. Consequently, this essay will exemplify why the latter’s arguments appear more persuasive and why I align with his point of view.
Summary of the Article
Bok’s article is centered around the display of offensive signs on the Harvard campus. In particular, a pair of students hung the Confederate flag – a symbol that many may interpret as an analogy of slavery – on their dormitory window. Consequently, this triggered the response from the third student, who displayed the Nazi swastika as a form of protest against the hanging flags (Bok 1). The event raised a heated discussion in light of the contradiction between freedom of speech protection under the U.S. Constitution (First Amendment) and anti-discriminatory practices that do not support a public display of the mentioned symbols.
In this context, Bok argues that the overall benefit of freedom of speech is more significant than the damage caused by offensive expressions of opinion. He begins his argument by stating that “to disapprove of a particular form of communication, however, is not enough to justify prohibiting it” (Bok 1). The author interprets the Supreme Court rulings regarding the First Amendment as wholly against any selective expression ban. Consequently, according to Bok, the students’ actions, regardless of their inappropriateness, do fall under the First Amendment protection as the free-speech clause (2). He furthers his argument by referring to the difficulty of objectively assessing the offensiveness of certain thought expressions, thereby implying such efforts are futile.
Finally, the author warns against selective expression bans due to the amount of public attention this issue might attract. According to Bok, not only can the offenders invent crueler and more sophisticated ways to achieve their goals, but they will also feel actively encouraged to do so (2). Consequently, the author proposes either ignoring the offenders or attempting to reason with them so that they can understand their wrongdoings.
Persuasiveness
In his article, the author mainly utilizes three tools to persuade readers of his opinion: a showcase of compassion, a reference to authority, and reasoning based on common sense. Regarding the former, the author openly disapproves of student actions. In particular, he calls such actions “insensitive and unwise” and regrets their decision to behave in such a fashion (Bok 1).
Nevertheless, Bok refers to the Supreme Court rulings and implies that their actions still fall under the First Amendment freedom of speech protection (2). Then, the author starts to anticipate the potential outcomes of the situation logically, with a focus on the most undesirable consequences of the ban on expression attempts. Unfortunately, the author fails to accomplish the desired level of persuasiveness since his arguments lack depth and insight to persuade readers.
Argument Response
Undoubtedly, the author’s compassion is appropriate and, more importantly, necessary in the article’s context. However, the other two arguments do not sound as appealing. The Supreme Court’s authority is undeniable, but the author does not provide specific examples from the mentioned rulings that would support his claims. The only support for the Supreme Court rulings is followed by “as I read them,” which instantly marks this claim as strictly subjective and, thus, insufficient (Bok 2).
Regarding the application of common sense, the author seemingly does not treat offenders as grown adults. Particularly, Bok proposes to deal with them as one would deal with an impudent child who cries to receive the desired toy. Such an approach might help with the child, but offenders’ motives are much crueler, and ignoring or only mildly approaching the subject will only foster a sense of impunity.
Comparison with Lawrence’s Perspective
In this context, Charles R. Lawrence’s “Debates Over Placing Limits on Racist Speech” does a significantly better job of persuading readers. First, it provides detailed support for his reference to Supreme Court rulings, highlighting that the First Amendment does not protect expressions that are deliberately offensive (Lawrence). Moreover, it does not apply to expressions in places where the offended person cannot avoid the conversation (Lawrence). Hence, in the given case, the students’ provocative actions do deserve a degree of punishment.
Second, he exemplifies why such actions are hardly tolerated by discriminated individuals—there is no way a person would feel safe under constant and unavoidable accusations. In this context, Lawrence speaks for the balanced approach, where the benefit of freedom of speech is not considered greater than individual rights protection by default.
Personal Opinion
Overall, I agree with Lawrence’s work on this matter. If I were to define the concept of freedom of speech, I would call it the ability of a person to express themselves and their thoughts independently of circumstances. Understanding the benefits of free expression is significantly easier from a single person’s perspective.
It goes hand-to-hand with various individual rights and is deemed a sign of a developed society in many places across the globe (Kendrick, 2018). In addition, free thought expression significantly contributes to the individual’s confidence and self-esteem. In particular, it allows drawing attention to specific societal issues, ultimately resulting in an improvement in quality of life.
On a broader scale, absolute freedom of speech is perfectly capable of breaking the status quo. In the worst cases, however, it allows the spread of ideas that are dangerous to society as a whole, such as various forms of extremism. What might be suitable for an individual does not necessarily bear the same value for other groups of people. Therefore, the fact that the maintenance of order holds the community together makes speech restrictions reasonable, if not necessary.
It is important to understand that absolute restriction is also not appropriate. The ability of anyone to speak anything does indeed breed chaos. In turn, the inability to speak at all results in a total suppression of individuality and human rights.
Thus, the contrast between absolute freedom and absolute restriction shows the true negativity behind the word “absolute.” Consequently, a bridge should be built that connects the two concepts, providing the needed compromise. In other words, the purpose of compromising lies in the exclusion of dangerous absolutism.
Conclusion
The concept of freedom of speech, being naturally controversial, can dramatically benefit from finding the right compromise between freedom and restriction. By fully supporting the freedom of speech, Bok subjectively disregards the true danger of its extreme form. In case a compromise is found, the individuals will still be provided with the desired freedom, which is a natural privilege for everyone. At the same time, society as a whole will be protected from undesirable freedom manifestations. Its stability, in turn, will ensure the protection of individuals, either from external threats or from themselves.
Works Cited
Bok, Derek. “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus.” Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 1991, Web.
Kendrick, Leslie. “Use Your Words: On the ‘Speech’ in ‘Freedom of Speech’.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 116, no. 5, 2018, pp. 667-704. Web.
Lawrence, Charles R. “The Debates Over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1989, Web.