Free Speech Analysis Essay Example

efforts in combating it. Imposing restrictions on speech for any individual or group poses a risk to everyone's rights, as these regulations can be utilized against anyone. Although hate speech may be offensive and harmful, it is still considered a form of free speech that should be safeguarded. In his work "Hate Speech on Campus," Joseph S. Tuman raises an important question: does hate speech cause harm to its targets? (413). Tuman himself experienced derogatory jokes and comments about his ethnicity during his childhood due to his Middle Eastern roots (Tuman 413). As a college professor now, Tuman finds himself conflicted on this issue because he is bound by hate speech codes (413). Despite his personal experiences, he cannot endorse such regulations (414).

Tuman illustrates that hate speech, although hurtful, is merely words and its impact depends on one's reaction to it. Censorship, as another example, can lead to numerous undesirable complications that undermine the advantages of higher education. If hate speech codes protect students from offensive opinions, they will not learn how to address such viewpoints upon graduation. Hence, colleges and universities should avoid sheltering their students.

In his essay titled "Free Speech on Campus," Nat Hentoff argues that shielding students from offensive ideas prevents them from developing the necessary skills to recognize and address them appropriately (408). This approach is not advantageous for minority groups, who will inevitably face discrimination in the real world. Prohibiting hate speech on campus establishes an artificial environment that impedes students' capacity to genuinely embrace diversity. It is crucial for college students to be prepared to handle any situation involving hate speech, as this enables them to acquire effective strategies

for addressing and coping with it.

There is an ongoing cycle of hate speech that we will all have to confront eventually, despite the increase in hate speech codes at colleges and universities. The country has experienced a continual rise in hate speech incidents, suggesting that these guidelines have not been effective. Ben Wildavsky's article "Rethinking Campus Speech Codes" explores the persistent conflicts related to race and gender on campuses and highlights the limited impact of speech codes in reducing tension (415).

Hate speech codes aim to create safer and more politically correct environments in college campuses, but they have proven highly ineffective. These guidelines are so vague that several major universities have deemed them unconstitutional. For instance, in 1989, a federal judge overturned portions of the University of Michigan's speech code after a biopsychology graduate student raised concerns about the rules hindering discussions on controversial theories regarding biological differences among sexes and races (Wildavsky 415). The enforcement of hate speech codes violates students' First Amendment rights, which guarantee freedom of speech for all individuals. To truly promote diversity in present-day college campuses, it is essential for college administrators and students to collaborate and combat ignorance to establish a respectful and tolerant environment. Attempting to regulate hate speech will never succeed as it infringes upon the constitutional rights of every American citizen.

Despite past failed attempts to impose speech restrictions in educational institutions, colleges have the power to protect their students on campus while maintaining the rights granted by the First Amendment. As long as this constitutional provision remains intact, everyone's freedom of speech will be preserved. To ensure that students are shielded from any adverse effects of

hate speech, it is crucial for colleges to provide support services and resources.