He is very divisive. I cannot believe that the school allowed him to address us. These are the words that one of my friends shared in response to a speech that was recently delivered by a far-right nationalist recently at this campus. The speech prompted me to reflect on the state of the school and the nation as a whole. We are in an age where we must balance free speech rights with the need to safeguard harmony and peace. I am sure that some of you have been asked to shut up because your audience did not like what you had to say. This must have left you feeling unwanted and unappreciated. Today, I am here to speak with you about the need to restore free speech liberties in American institutions of higher learning. In particular, I would like to make the case for permitting offensive speech. I am an individual who has experienced harassment and abuse because of the views that I hold. While some individuals may find my perspectives to be extreme and offensive, I insist that I have the right to be permitted to speak freely. I hope that at the end of my speech, I will have challenged you to understand that the mere fact that speech may cause offense is not sufficient reason for its prohibition. In my speech, I will begin with a look at how sensitive and intolerant our nation has become. I will then proceed to highlight the role that free speech rights can play in restoring dialogue and constructive conversation in our campuses.
Our campuses have become toxic and are no longer the safe spaces for open and unhindered conversation that they used to be. To gain a proper understanding of the state of our schools, we should consider the numerous colleges across the US that have been forced to adopt extreme measures. The University of California at Berkeley is among these institutions. For those of you who stay updated on developments in our colleges, I am sure that you are familiar with the incidents that this college has faced. Recently, it was forced to introduce tough measures as part of efforts to allow free speech while maintaining safety. For example, Milo Yiannopoulos is among the far-right speakers who were scheduled to address students at the school. He was forced to cut short some of his speeches and abandon others entirely (Qunitana, 2018). Personally, I feel that the situation at Berkeley is a reflection on how sensitive our generation has become. Granted, Yiannapoulos was a highly divisive figure who sparked outrage with his extremist views and incendiary speeches. However, we need to remember the principles on which our nation is founded. We are a country that promotes democracy and free speech across the globe. I think that it is rather hypocritical and unacceptable to be advocates of free speech but fail to uphold this principle. Therefore, before proceeding to my next point, I urge you all to help end this climate of hostility and intolerance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I should probably issue an advisory to those among you who already find what I have said to be offensive and insensitive. It has only begun and will only get worse. I am not alone in finding that our campuses have been reduced to spaces where offensive content is not tolerated. Recently, I read a report authored by Greg Lukianoff and Haidt (2015) that was featured on the digital edition of the Atlantic magazine. In this report, Lukianoff and Haidt decry the “coddling of the American mind.” They lament that American students are so sensitive that they respond with anger and violence to speech that they find offensive. Some of you may dismiss Lukianoff and Haidt as individuals who are not familiar with the dynamics of the modern American campus. While I hear your concerns, I have to side with this duo. There is no denying that our nation has become overly sensitive. I understand that there are some students who require their teachers to issue warnings when they are about to discuss an issue that could trigger some adverse effect. For example, when the teacher is set to talk about war and famine, students who find these topics to be depressing may ask to be excused or be alerted. I think that this example shows how absurdly unreasonable and insensitive we have become. This insensitivity is also seen in how we handle speech with which we do not agree. It is nearly impossible for our campuses to make any progress and advancement if we do not accommodate offensive and extreme speech. Therefore, I reiterate my call for all of you to join forces with me in protecting free speech in our campus and across the nation.
I think that we can now move on to my third point. The focus of this point is how campuses can navigate the complex and delicate interactions between free speech rights, harmony and security. To make this point, I will not rely on my own perspectives. Instead, I will consult scholars who have shed light on this issue. Tom Clark (2018) authored an interesting piece that urges readers to recognize that we must create spaces for offensive speech. In the article, Clark warns that by prohibiting offensive content, we essentially silence some voices and opinions. For instance, in a previous section, I offered the example of the University of California, Berkeley as among the campuses that have adopted stringent measures. This school has had to hire security personnel to protect speakers with extremist views. I must laud the efforts of the university and urge other campuses to follow its example. Universities should be platforms for total and free expression. They should be where conflicting opinions should interact and create solutions for the many problems that our society faces. Instead, the universities are actively silencing voices and stifling unpopular opinion. Those of you who feel that universities should ban extremist speakers may cite the current divisive state of our nation to defend your position. I agree that our nation is deeply divided and that extreme speech is partly to blame. For instance, recently, there have been protests and counter-protests organized by far-right groups and campaigners for diversity and lax immigration rules. In some cases, these protests have turned violent and have underscored the need for the US to reflect on how speech can be used to heal instead of causing division. Despite the tensions and divisions, I maintain that free speech should never be sacrificed in the pursuit of safety and harmony. Any nation that suppresses free speech can never attain true freedom.
As I close, I would like to reiterate some of the points that I have made. I have challenged you to recognize that our campuses have lost their capacity to host conflicting opinions. We are in an era where students are no longer passionate defenders of debate and free speech. Instead, they have become wimpy and delicate individuals who are unable to accommodate opinions that vary from their own. I believe that you agree with me that we must change the situation in our schools. If we are to create a strong nation that is founded on free speech and open conversations, we need to push colleges and universities to accommodate a wide variety of opinions and perspectives. As I leave the stage, I leave you with the words of one of my mentors: “a weak mind flees from ideas that seem drastic and extreme”. Thank you.
References
Clark, T. (2018). Free speech matters, and the people worried about it aren’t all bigots. The Guardian. Retrieved April 13, 2019 from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/26/free-speech-bigots-no-platform
Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2015). The coddling of the American mind. The Atlantic. Retrieved April 13, 2019 from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
Qunitana, C. (2018). Berkeley reviews how to handle controversial speakers. University World News. Retrieved April 13, 2019 from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20180504134130560
