Free Speech
Introduction
Currently, all American citizens enjoy the right to speak out under the protection of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. According to Buyse (2014), freedom of speech is the basis of intellectual discourse. In many ways, every institution of higher learning has the mandate to facilitate the growth of this intellectual discourse. In a bid to nurture the freedom of speech, the United States provides safety to the ethical considerations of free conversations. Freedom of speech is essential because any opinion may have a bit of truth, but even when the claim is disputable, it can be strengthened through discussions. However, one faces many considerations before s/he can speak out. There are times when one needs to have a permit from the institution, and there are things one has to avoid. This paper will show why free speech is essential in higher education and how it has evolved.
Background information
Speech codes in American universities were established in the late 1980s to ensure that university administrators facilitated the discourse of expression while protecting others from being victimized. However, many observers claim that free expressions of thoughts should not be seen to target certain quarters. Additionally, trying to regulate speech is equivalent to denying the rights accorded by the US Constitution (Downs & Cowan, 2012). Administrators in the higher learning institutions use these speech codes to overstep their limits in regulating speech. However, some administrators alter these speech codes to suppress free expression by inducing censorship for utterances that are considered bias or pervading. Undoubtedly, it is through freedom of expression that many issues have been addressed. Schools offer versatile thinkers who are opinion shapers for various situations affecting the world. For example, the question of racial integration and affirmative action revolve around learning institutions. Thus, only through speaking out that institution can find lasting solutions.
Administrators at higher learning institutions have the authority to issue time, place, and manner restrictions on specific speech such as those presumed to encourage racism, tailored to fit precarious situations, or serve some private interests. For example, if a demonstration is expected to prevent the normal functioning of a campus. Additionally, learning institutions should serve as breeding sites for future leaders. If free speech is restricted at the institutional level, then this will jeopardize the possibility of having future leaders who can represent public interest both at local and international levels (Maderer & Finnegan, 2015).
Evolution of the tenets of free speech
Freedom of expression has experienced tremendous progress since the inception of the First Amendment. Conduct is the primary principle that everyone has to observe when expressing an opinion. Unlike, in early 1900 when students would stage unlawful protests and escape the law, today, things have changed for the better (Majeed, 2009). Notably, the issue is not the views that are expressed but how they are communicated. Everyone has the right to speak out their views since they are protected regardless of the beliefs one holds. Contrary, the same law regulates the behavior of the speaker. What counts is the manner to utilize that provision. For instance, if students conduct a demonstration that leads to substantial barriers to daily activities, the administration may be compelled to intervene. On the other hand, with organized expressions, no one has the right to interfere merely because they do not concur with the views.
According to Downs and Cowan (2012), the right to speak out is for everyone regardless of age, gender, race, or religion. Before the inception of the First Amendment, students from minority groups hardly had the opportunity to express their views. Platforms for expression were designed to favor the white students, as the non-whites were deemed inferior to make decisions. Today, simply because one is a student from an inferior background does not imply that s/he has to live by other people’s opinions. Most learning institutions have a set of beliefs and norms that students and even workers have to adhere to without contention. These regulations are subject to criticism thus students should feel free to question and demand changes if necessary (Buyse, 2014). However, this does not give students the authority to disobey the rules and regulations of the institution. Free speech must only intend to nurture knowledge through debates and lively exchanges between students and their teachers. Differing opinions do not imply that one party is correct and the other is wrong. Everyone has a mandate to support and promote his or her beliefs and values.
While exercising the right to speak out, it is necessary to consider when, where, and how to apply these rights (Schrecker, 2015). University administrations have defined locations designated for meetings when students want to share views. If students protest in areas that are meant for study, this might as well violate the rights of other students who wish to access learning premises. If the protests cause violence, the administration has the authority to disband the event. Additionally, every institution has regulations that answer the questions when, where, and how. Thus, the students must understand them before they are caught on the wrong side of the institution’s regulations.
Independence of ideas is another principle that has gained momentum in recent years. There have always been aspects of patronage and loyalty in today’s speech but not as influential as in the past (Buyse, 2014). Today, students and workers show independence in decision-making free from administration influence. Gradually, students are regaining their thoughtful and reflective speeches that shape valid opinions. Even though speech codes have been deemed unconstitutional by various court decisions, administrators blackmail students to make them share common views about racist speech, gay rights, and abortion among others (Maderer & Finnegan, 2015).
At what point does free speech meet institution’s control
There is no doubt that law protects all forms of speech, even when it lacks a bit of truth, or it is unpopular. Students can criticize the administration without fear of censorship or other forms of retaliation. Nevertheless, these rights do not protect maliciousness, aspersion, or speech that triggers lawlessness. If a student leads a protest to destroy school property or insult the authority, this is beyond protection and may invite intervention. The main claim to support speech codes is that learning institutions have a moral obligation of ensuring all students feel comfortable. However, comfort cannot be substituted for the social damage caused when students are restricted to air their views.
On various occasions, members of a crowd who wish to wage protests may misinterpret or alter student speeches. Colleagues may decide to react violently to speech that was not intended to cause lawlessness. In this case, the administration should take the responsibility to manage the crowd. The factor of place, time, and manner apply in such cases. The speaker may not be held responsible if the time, place, and manner of speech were appropriate. The idea of creating free-assembly zones has been highly criticized by students citing that such zones discourage free speech and generate a threatening effect because the zones are often monitored (Majeed, 2009).
In many cases, if not all, speeches that attract the masses need to have permits from the administration. Even though administrations cannot restrict demonstrations, it is essential to acquire a permit since it helps to coordinate simultaneous demands for venues and ensure that the time, place, and manner are appropriate. Demonstrations should not take place during times intended for classes since not all students may be interested in participating. Additionally, the school laws do not allow students to skip school to undertake demonstrations. Nonetheless, the institution has no authority to punish anyone for their views regardless of how controversial they might seem. While advocating for the need for speech codes in the universities, it is necessary to focus on embracing decency and politeness in speech rather than limiting the content (Majeed, 2009).
Conclusion
The higher learning institutions are gradually turning to be a marketplace of ideas but not injustices as it was some decades ago. In a bid for the best ideas to flourish, all views and criticism should be permitted in the process of establishing the truth. By rewarding partisanship, sanctioning criticism, and combating discussion of fundamental socio-economic and political subjects, learning institutions will be threatening liberty. An approach to an institution’s speech code that covers the interest of the students and the administration while observing constitutional requirements would be a meaningful step.
References
Buyse, A. (2014). Words of Violence: “Fear Speech,” or How Violent Conflict Escalation Relates to the Freedom of Expression. Human Rights Quarterly, 36(4), 779-797.
Downs, D., & Cowan, G. (2012). Predicting the Importance of Freedom of Speech and the Perceived Harm of Hate Speech. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1353-1375.
Maderer, W., & Finnegan, J. (2015). Uphold conduct codes while respecting free speech rights. Campus Security Report, 11(11), 5-5.
Majeed, A. (2009). Defying the Constitution the Rise, Persistence, and Prevalence of Campus Speech Codes. The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 7(1), 481-544.
Schrecker, E. (2015). Academic Freedom in Conflict: The Struggle over Free Speech Rights in the University. Labor Law Journal, 75(4), 324-327.