In recent years, the issue of free speech has become one of the hottest controversies in American society, and higher education has become one of the greatest frontlines in debates over what free speech means and where its limitations reach. Over the past few decades, social justice issues have become prevalent, which are the major causes of disagreements on what free speech entails and where free speech becomes hate speech. It is clear constitutionally, according to the First Amendment, that free speech is a fundamental right of all Americans. However, it also holds that hate speech cannot be allowed, which is a tool for division. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult, especially in higher education institutions, to establish the dividing line between free speech and hate speech (Amar & Brownstein, 2016). It is undeniably true that all students, faculty, and all members of the staff on college campuses enjoy freedom of speech and expression, which should not be limited, but at the same time, college campuses cannot disregard divisive speech, which could potentially cause harm to others.
According to the given context for this paper, a considered “controversial” public speaker has been invited to my institution by a group of students. However, the on-campus event organizers have already rejected the invitation based on fear of allegations of hate speech. Some board of trustees members have recommended that the speaker be allowed in, and my responsibility is to make sense of the situation, which is now a standoff between the opposing groups. First, it is essential to acknowledge that free speech, as noted earlier, is a fundamental right. It becomes even more essential in college campuses like my institution because it is undeniably true that people must have different views on different matters (Park, 2020). I will quote the American founding fathers in the Independence Declaration document, who said that schools are a “marketplace of ideas,” so everyone in a school setting should be free to speak their mind (Kasper, 2019). In a marketplace of ideas, such as in my institution, I argue that people with different ideas should have the right to speak and air their opinions.
On the other hand, I would also acknowledge that those opposing the visiting “controversial” speaker from speaking in the vicinity of the campus could also have genuine concerns, and it is essential to listen to them. Listening to them before deciding is important; they must distinguish and clarify what they consider hate speech (Moses, 2021). Notably, as the new front line for the speech battle, college campuses have indeed decided to redraw the lines between acceptable speech. Issues related to race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexuality, and gender have become the most contested in the battle for speech, and the fact that these issues determine the political stand of individuals, especially on college campuses, further complicates them. It has been a concern under the new policies promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. Safe spaces must be introduced on college campuses to ensure that everyone, regardless of how diverse they choose to be and express themselves, must be respected and not discriminated against.
The confusing issue in the case of free speech on my college campus has increased, especially when the board of trustees members have begun voicing their opinions on the problem and already are taking sides. This development has seen various faculty members asking whether board members are allowed to comment on such issues, following one who recommended that the said controversial speaker should be invited. First, as citizens, the board members are protected by the First Amendment on free speech, and therefore, their opinions should be considered (Moses, 2021). Being a member of the board of the college trustees should not be a limiting factor when it comes to matters regarding free speech. In recent years, various members of trustees from various universities and colleges have openly represented their views on a series of issues. However, they have been heavily criticized, even receiving offers to resign from their positions (Moses, 2021).
In the case presented in our institution, I advise the president to allow everyone who wishes to air their views respectfully, and their opinion may be considered where necessary. I would point out to the president that the speaker should be allowed to speak to the interested group because preempting them by denying them access is not a professional idea. However, to avoid a potential crisis between the two opposing groups of students, it is also important to put some measures in place to ensure that the event remains friendly to everyone and provides a conducive environment for all people.
References
Amar, V. D., & Brownstein, A. E. (2016). A close-up, modern look at First Amendment academic freedom rights of public college students and faculty. Minn. L. Rev., 101, 1943.
Kasper, E. T. (2019). Public Universities and the First Amendment: Controversial Speakers, Protests, and Free Speech Policies. Cap. UL Rev., 47, 529.
Moses, M. S. (2021). “Very Fine People on Both Sides:” Diverse Viewpoints, Truth, and Free Speech on Campus. Educational Studies, 57(4), 365–377.
Park, M. (2020). Sovereignty and First Amendment rights of higher education institutions: An affirmative and institutional approach. First Amendment Studies, 54(1), 110–127.
write