Speech Codes and Restrictions

Due to the controversy it has generated over the years, the adoption of speech codes in American colleges and universities has received a lot of attention. The government or the administrators in educational institutions create rules and laws known as "speech codes" in an effort to prevent students from using offensive language. In this instance, the illegal expression is deemed to go beyond the US Constitution's guarantee of free speech. This indicates that it is against the law to use terms that encourage inequality and discrimination in society; hence, the speech codes are meant to protect students from racism and harassment from their schoolmates or lecturers. However, some student-led groups and institutions have emerged to challenge the implementation of the speech codes arguing that they violate the 1st amendment of the US Constitution that is aimed at promoting the freedom of speech. The groups argue that speech should be unrestricted in colleges and universities to facilitate effective communication among the learners and lecturers. The introduction of the speech codes is influenced by the diversity of students where the free access education enables Americans of all origins to join learning institutions. The disparities regarding their backgrounds may create tensions and strained relationships where they may engage in the use of offensive language (Volokh, 151). Therefore, the speech codes strive to prevent the rivalry among students and their lecturers through the restriction of some words and statements. This paper will critically analyze the debate in relation to the question on whether the speech codes violate or not the freedom of speech in colleges and universities by looking at both the pros and cons. From the slightest depiction of the topic, it is evident that the implementation of speech codes has beneficial effects, as long as there are clear regulatory guidelines. The paper will take a pro position; that is, the speech codes do not violate free speech; hence, supporting restricted speech in campuses.

Arguments Supporting The Implementation Of Speech Codes

Restriction of speech in the learning institutions is a critical factor that must be considered by both the federal and state governments to ensure effective protection of students since they are considered vulnerable to verbal violence. The governments should create policies and practices that enable free speech to be utilized in a correct manner and promote unity among the learners and their trainers. Some of the arguments supporting the restriction of speech include rights provided under the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, exceptions in the 1st amendment, political correctness, justice and equality, and violence prevention.

The 14th Amendment

This amendment under the Constitution is crucial in identifying why restricted speech should be implemented in colleges and universities in the United States. The amendment addresses issues regarding equal protection and citizenship rights where it was formulated after the American Civil War. The 14th amendment focused on eliminating issues such as slavery and racial segregation in the United States through advocating for equality and fairness. For instance, it reports that African Americans should be considered as American citizens where both the federal and state policies should be designed to ensure they are treated equally as other citizens in the country (Ginsburg, 161). The amendment also points out that all citizens should be provided with equal opportunities such as education and employment to facilitate their growth and development. Therefore, the equal protection clause in this amendment justifies why restricted speech is crucial in both learning and working institutions. The failure to implement the speech codes in the institutions means that individuals belonging to minority communities will be subject to verbal abuse and harassment from their school or working mates. The lecturers in colleges and universities may fail to restrict their speech during the teaching or training process; hence, using terms that may be viewed as offensive by students from the minority communities in the US. Therefore, since the 14th amendment advocates for equality and fairness through its equal protection and citizenship clauses, speech should be regulated to protect the rights and interests of the minority. This means that they will not experience verbal harassment in the learning institutions; hence, eliminating discrimination and racism.

The 1st Amendment Exceptions

The 1st amendment of the US Constitution was formulated to ensure the effective protection of the rights and freedoms of the Americans. Some of the freedoms addressed by the amendment include freedom of speech, religion, and the press; hence, indicating that Americans are guaranteed protection by the government. The freedom of speech, in this case, establishes that individuals are free to communicate and address issues to the public without being limited by other people or organizations. Despite the provision of this freedom by the amendment, it, on the other hand, provides situations, which the freedom of speech can be limited. Some of the exceptions provided by the Constitution include the factor that the topic of discussion is considered private, the speech is obscene, and school activities. The exception on privacy means that individuals conducting their operations on private grounds are restricted from speech depending on the policies and practices within the institution. This may apply to private learning institutions that may design their laws in a manner, which promote equality through implementing speech codes. The 1st amendment also fails to protect public school students on matters involving controversies and discrimination. For instance, a Supreme Court case in 1988 ruled in favor of school administrators where it stated that they had not violated the 1st amendment by removing controversial statements and articles from books and newspapers used by students (Moore, 120). This indicates that the authorities in the learning institutions are protected by the US Constitution when restricting students from obscene or controversial speech. Therefore, the exceptions provided by the 1st amendment are proof that speech codes do not violate the freedom of speech of the students in colleges and universities; hence, acting as a protection mechanism to prevent them from engaging in controversial topics, harassment, and verbal violence.

Political Correctness

Political correctness is also a term that supports the restriction of speech in the society to ensure the effective protection of the interests of the minority and disadvantaged groups in the country. It involves the avoidance of statements, actions, or languages that are viewed as insulting, discriminating, and excluding people or groups. The victims, in this case, are considered individuals belonging to specific marginalized or disadvantaged entities in the society where they are vulnerable to statements or actions viewed as discriminatory. The discrimination is defined by or based on two factors; that is, race or gender where people in the minority are offered protection from verbal abuse. For instance, in the United States, the young generation attending school comprises of students from different backgrounds, races, and genders where they interact and learn together (Lawrence, 61). Since the colleges and universities are also associated with politics regarding student leadership, the leaders may use some statements where they may discriminate women or students from other races. Therefore, political correctness seeks to ensure that the actions and statements of the leaders are effectively monitored and regulated to prevent them from engaging in hate speech, which may divide the citizens based on their race or gender. The US government has implemented laws and policies that enable politicians to abstain from inciting Americans to violence where the implications of engaging in this act include fines and jail terms. Political correctness also applies to the media where their views and opinions should be controlled and adjusted to enable them to provide information that caters to the needs of both the majority and minority groups in the country. Therefore, since speech codes are been applied by the government to regulate the language used by the politicians and the media, they can also be implemented in the education sector to govern students. The learners should be trained in a manner that they can give their views and opinions without being discriminatory; hence, speech should be restricted in the schools.

Justice and Equality

The promotion of justice and equality is also a key argument why speech should be restricted and regulated in colleges and university campuses. It is the policy of the learning institutions to provide equal opportunities to all students despite their differences in race, gender, age, and color. Therefore, the formulated laws and regulations should address to all learners where the rewards should be awarded to deserving students while, on the other hand, punishments should be provided to students doing wrong. The principles managing the actions and behaviors of the students should be based on justice and equality. Therefore, for the two concepts to be evident, free speech should be restricted to the students to enable them not to satisfy their personal interests at the cost of others. This is because free speech for one group is likely to suppress the free speech of another party; hence, creating verbal harassment and strained relationships among the students. Therefore, the restriction of the free speech is meant to ensure that no student has an advantage over the other where the speech codes enable them to refrain from using words of incitement or controversy topics (Volokh 120). The restriction promotes respect among the students since they can recognize their differences but still work together to ensure they succeed in their studies. Therefore, speech codes are crucial in promoting equity and fairness since the laws and policies guide learners on how to act or speak when giving opinions and suggestions without offending each other.

Counter-Arguments

Violation of Rights and Freedoms

The emerging groups comprising of both students and lecturers have argued against the formulation of speech codes in colleges and university campuses terming the move as a violation of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. They provide that the free speech is protected by the Constitution, and the introduction of the codes in learning institutions violates the freedom of students to freely communicate. The 1st amendment guarantees the protection of Americans and their freedom of speech where they are expected to freely address their ideas and views without being limited (Jacoby, 43). Therefore, this argument strives to identify that the speech codes should be considered illegal since they are against the constitution.

Problem Solving

This point identifies that unrestricted speech should be adopted by the learning institutions since it enables students to communicate without any limitations and state their ideas and opinions. Through making the free speech the society will understand the challenges being experienced such as discrimination and racism where effective solutions can then be generated to eradicate the challenges. The groups opposed to the implementation of speech codes argue that restrictions prevent students from facing reality; hence, failing to identify the challenges in the society (Bok, 66). The restrictions should not be used in learning institutions since their primary goal is to provide learners with education and general knowledge.

Ineffective Prohibition

The counter-argument of ineffective prohibition states that the speech codes fail to provide a clear guideline on which words to prohibit. This is actual because not all controversial topics generate verbal wars and harassment; hence, the restrictions should be limited to specific topics. The speech codes may prevent the discussion of key issues in schools since they limit students from engaging in critical debates due to the fear of discrimination and racism. The groups opposing the restriction argue that the emergence of social disorders is not always the case when addressing controversial topics since the topics can lead to the generation of ideas and solutions (Volokh 52). In general, the prohibition of some topics may limit the thinking process of students, in particular negatively affecting their performance. The restriction on speech may also has a negative effect on the growth and development process of a child since he or she may lack the confidence required when communicating or addressing key issues.

Rebuttal of Counter-Arguments

The arguments opposing the formulation and implementation of speech codes indicate some contradictions that make them ineffective. For instance, the point on violation of the 1st amendment is incorrect since the amendment provides some exceptions as to when the freedom of speech is limited. According to the amendment, individuals have a right to communicate, but in some cases, this right can be violated. Some of the instances which include dealing with private matters or an individual is expected to abide the regulations created by the private entity. The amendment also provides that this freedom can be violated for schooling purposes where the actions and statements of students can be regulated by school authorities to prevent discrimination and inequality.

Conclusion

Therefore, from this study, one can identify the benefits of the implementation of speech codes in learning institutions. Speech codes involve school administrators regulating and restricting speech in colleges and university campuses to prevent students from verbal harassment and violence. The codes do not violate free speech since they are regulated by the Constitution of the USA; that is, the 14th amendment advocates for citizenship and equal protection by the laws. This means that speech should be restricted to enable students from minority groups not to experience verbal abuse in their areas of study. Other arguments supporting the speech codes include the 1st amendment exceptions on the freedom of speech, political correctness, and justice and equity. However, some groups have emerged and provided counter-arguments that indicate that the implementation of speech codes in learning institutions is a violation of the freedom of speech provided in the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. Problem-solving is another counter-argument where individuals argue that speech should be unrestricted to enable students to communicate freely and create solutions to the challenges in the society. Lastly, ineffective prohibition identifies that the codes restrict controversial topics that are not likely to create verbal harassment; hence, limiting the students’ freedom of speech.

Works cited

Bok, Derek. “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau 6, 1991, pp. 51-52.

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. “Sexual Equality Under the Fourteenth and Equal Rights Amendments.” Wash. ULQ, 1979, pp. 161.

Jacoby, Susan. “A First Amendment Junkie.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions 6, 1999, pp. 36-38.

Lawrence III, 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 36.8, 1989.

Moore, Thomas H. “RAV v. City of St. Paul: A Curious Way To Protect Free Speech.” NCL Rev. 71, 1992, p. 1252.

Volokh, Eugene. “Coding Campus.” The Problem of Speech Codes, 2002, pp. 131-152.

Volokh, Eugene. “Freedom of Speech and Appellate Review in Workplace Harassment Cases.” Nw. UL Rev. 90, 1995, p. 1009.

Volokh, Eugene. “Freedom of Speech, Shielding Children, and Transcending Balancing.” The Supreme Court Review, 1997, pp. 141-197.