How free should campus speech be?
Introduction
Free speech is a fundamental freedom (Mulligan, 554). It is one of the fundamental freedoms mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is up there with the right to life and right to freedom from slavery and torture. However, on whether the amount of freedom should be regulated for campus students has been a subject of debate for decades (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz and Walters 20). In this essay, the view is given that the freedom of speech in campus should be absolute and unrestricted for any reason whatsoever. The essay presents four arguments in favour of this view, and also briefly looks at arguments against free speech in campus and why they are unmerited to limit this freedom.
Absolute Freedom of Speech Is a Fundamental Right
The first reason the freedom of speech should be unrestricted in campus is that it is a fundamental human right, and has been so since the 1948 adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN General Assembly (Mulligan 534). Article 19 of that declaration states everyone has a right to freely express their opinions without being interfered with, including the right of seeking and receiving information and ideas via any medium. This point is critical as a basis for the rest of the arguments below because it proves that freedom of speech is not being demanded under false authority (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz and Walters 11).
As Andrea et al. (77) rightly puts it, false authority is a fallacy of argument in which “writers offer themselves or other authorities as sufficient warrant for believing a claim” especially when the documents cited are misinterpreted or the rights claimed are not in the document cited. But in this case, Article 19 contains the basis of looking at freedom of speech as fundamental human rights, and this cannot be taken away from a group of people who are sane and able to think on their own behalf (Mulligan 538). Thus, restricting the freedom of speech among campus students is akin to restricting their freedom of thought by telling them they are free to think, but only about what the university deems fit.
Absolute Freedom of Speech Is a Legal Right in All Democracies
Secondly, freedom of speech is a legal right that cannot be denied any person legally living within the United States and other countries in which it is a legal right (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz and Walters 187). To be sure, some countries refused to adopt the Declaration for one reason or the other, but a majority of the world’s democracies adopted it and in turn borrowed significantly from it to make their own laws (Schabas, 403). Other countries have freedom of speech as a legal right that predates the declaration. The United States, for example, adopted the freedom of speech on its first constitutional amendment of 1791 (Mulligan 542). That amendment prevents any “abridgement” of speech and as Stevens (102) points out, this freedom cannot be taken away unless it is taken away illegally.
Despite the legal position of freedom of speech, many student leaders as well as followers have been arrested in the course of history for speaking or otherwise expressing their ideas during protests, debates and peaceful demonstrations. However, Andrea et al. (72) pints out that these are simply scare tactics, and they are often used to suppress people from doing what they would like to do. Thus, limiting the freedom of speech in campuses is the legal problem. It should therefore be left for the students themselves to decide what they will or will not do with their freedom, and efforts of all universities and colleges should be to train them in how to use their freedom for the betterment of the society (Mulligan 544).
Limited Freedom of Speech Makes it Impossible for Students to Fight for Their Rights
Another reason to insist on absolute freedom of speech is by considering how limiting censorship can be for students especially when they want to advocate for their rights (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz and Walters 45). The reason it is wrong to limit student rights of speech is that the people in charge of deciding what qualifies and what does not qualify as permitted speech will be the school administration. This brings an agency problem because in some cases, the interest of the students may be in conflict with those of the administration, and taking away the ability of the students to voice their concerns fully may make it impossible for them to influence change, especially when change is inevitable. As Anderson (4) pointed out, in most learning institutions, the voice of the students is “largely relegated to the margin when it comes to conversations about education policy creation, feedback, and reform.”
On the contrary, students should be allowed to be active participants in the campus discourse, since it is their life that is at stake after all. From this perspective, limiting students’ freedom of speech may in fact have the opposite effect of making the student more committed towards expressing their freedom, as seen during the civil rights movement of 1960s (Wragg 46). For instance, in 1960, four black students in a North Carolina school protested by going to lunch in Whites only lunch counters while talking about equal rights (Mulligan 551). In 1963, 250,000 protested for equality of blacks and whites, and in 1964, 20,000 students marched to the board of education protesting the same while another 450,000 did the same in New York (Anderson, 6). It is important to note that these expressions of the freedom of speech were not endorsed by the education management of the time, as they were predominantly white schools and mostly against such desegregation, which is why the schools were still keeping people segregated despite the Brown v. Board of Education ruling 10 years ago in which segregation had been abolished in institutions of learning (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz and Walters 29).
Absolute Freedom of Speech Is Necessary For Furthering Political and Economic Discourse
Lastly, campus speech must remain an absolute free speech because if it is restricted in any way, it can no longer count as free speech at all, as it goes against the very definition of the matter (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz and Walters 77). To illustrate this point, consider the analogy in the definition of marriage as defined in the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed into federal law. In that act, marriage is “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” (Andrea et al., 186). With such a definition, all efforts to permit same sex marriage would be futile since any such marriages would be considered not legal. Thus, any legal consideration of same sex marriage must first declare DOMA unconstitutional, which is what the Supreme Court did in 2013 (Mulligan 539). In the present case, the constitution, and the United Nations, means that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, or its ideas, message, or subject matter. Thus, until such a time when the constitution will be changed to restrict this freedom, students must be allowed the full right to debate on public issues in a manner that is robust, uninhibited, and open (Stevens 12).
As long as sit remains constitutional, everyone on campus must be feel free to participate in any discourse they deem fit because it is in campus that intellectuals are shaped (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz and Walters 22). While all institutions of learning provide learners with the opportunity to grow their minds¸ primary education merely introduces learners to the concept of knowledge and gives them the basics to grasp knowledge, while secondary education acts as an introduction to the learning faculties, from where individuals can identify what they want to major in. It is in higher institutions of learning that students get to interact with advanced knowledge, and perhaps even question the basis of some truths (Mulligan 561). A student of religion might, for instance, question the existence of God and the veracity of the bible. A student of politics may question the powers vested on the president. A student of economics may question the role of banks in enabling imprudent investments such as unsecured mortgage lending that resulted in the 2008 financial crisis (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz and Walters 71).
Objections
Those who oppose the absolute free speech in campuses are likely to argue that with freedom comes responsibility and it is therefore necessary to caution students from the harsh responsibility that comes with absolute freedom. For instance, when students organise a peaceful protest to speak against abortion, and in the process they meet counter protesters in support of this abortion (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz and Walters 53). This may lead to violent riots, which may lead to injuries, loss of lives or damage to property and people may be arrested and charged for their part in the destructive actions. Thus, to prevent this, a university may restrict the extent to which students can express free speech while in campus. However, this argument is retrogressive because it does not help the student to learn how to deal with the reality. Instead, universities ought to teach students how to be responsible citizens even while enjoying their freedoms (Mulligan 546).
Conclusion
Humans are born with certain rights, and these rights cannot be taken away from them merely on the basis of their socioeconomic position in life. The freedom of speech is one such right and cannot be censored in any way because it is protected both by the UN as well as the US constitution. Further, it is also necessary if students are to remain advocates of their destiny within institutions of higher learning. Beyond their classroom contexts, campus students may apply their new knowledge with their personal beliefs to interrogate society and demand change if and when necessary.
Works Cited
Anderson, Melinda. The Other Student Activists. Boston: The Atlantic. 2015. Web.
Lunsford, Andrea; Ruszkiewicz, John and Walters, Keith. Chapter 5: Fallacies of emotional arguments – scare tactics.pg. 10-72. 2016. Print.
Lunsford, Andrea; Ruszkiewicz, John and Walters, Keith. Chapter 5: Fallacies of ethical arguments – appeals to false authority. 2016 pg. 11-77. Print.
Lunsford, Andrea; Ruszkiewicz, John and Walters, Keith. Chapter 9: Arguments of definition-understanding arguments of definition. 2016. Pg. 120-186. Print.
Mulligan, Josh (2004). “Finding a Forum in the Simulated City: Mega Malls, Gated Towns, and the Promise of Pruneyard”. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy. 13: 533, 557.
Schabas, William (1998). “Canada and the Adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (PDF). McGill Law Journal. 43: 403.
Stevens, John Paul. “The Freedom of Speech”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 102, (1993): 12-96
Wragg, Paul (2015). “Free Speech Rights at Work: Resolving the Differences between Practice and Liberal Principle” (PDF). Industrial Law Journal. Oxford University Press. 44 (1): 11. Pp.44 -56.