Current situation on college campus

After my previous blog post diving into whether or not we are limiting free speech on campus, I remain at the conclusion that we are limiting speech. While I did originally have strong opinions on the topic, I have also concluded that universities are generally trying to do what is best for free speech. Where are these limitations coming from? Multiple sources, including students and professors. While many have good intentions, they may not realize the cost of silencing others. Are professors really limiting free speech? In an article from, The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf covered a debate on free speech being threatened on campus held at Yale University. He covered University of Pennsylvania Professor, Shaun Harper, who leads its Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education. During the debate, Professor Harper said, “I invite our opponents to present us more than a handful of written, institutional policies––where it's been put in writing that you can't say certain things. You can't wear certain costumes. Sure, students would be encouraged to do or not do something. But I, as a higher-education scholar who studied thousands of colleges and universities, have never seen a written institutional policy.”

Although the previous research did not change my mind on the topic, it did allow me to empathize with people who prefer a trigger warning, or attempt to create a more equal society. I believe we must create safe environments on campus for all ideas, thoughts and words. What happens if we continue to hide from people whose views don’t align correctly with our own? University of Virginia President Teresa A. Sullivan said, “If we protect college students today from opposing views and diverse perspectives through “speech codes” or other restrictions on free expression, we do them a great disservice, because we’re leaving them unprepared for the intellectual and social fray that they will enter the moment they step off our campuses.” How do we progress from our current situation? I think the answer is clear; we must push for an open, honest discussion. Every opinion should be respected and given the option to be expressed.

Kelly, Jane. "At Higher Ed Conference, UVA President Offers Vigorous Support of Free Speech." UVA Today. N.p., 13 Mar. 2017. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Glaring Evidence That Free Speech Is Threatened on Campus." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 04 Mar. 2016. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.

ACEducationTV. "ACE2017: Teresa Sullivan Gives the Robert H. Atwell Lecture." YouTube. YouTube, 13 Mar. 2017. Web. 14 Apr. 2017.

Trigger warnings

Should we use trigger warnings to protect students on college campus?  In an interview with Ayna Kamenetz on NPR’s All Things Considered, she spoke about the original term. According to Kamenetz, “it comes from the psychology of posttraumatic stress disorder. So individuals who have been through for example sexual assault or combat - they may have outsized emotional responses to potentially harmless words or images and that might be up to and including a panic attack.” These trigger warnings are used to alarm a student that there may be sensitive material covered in class. NPR Ed, in a 2015 survey, polled 800 faculty members and half of them used trigger warning in their class. Are these warnings necessary? While I do not believe so, they also are not harmful and can help mentally prepare someone for the course. In their survey, they also found only 3.4% of students had requested trigger warnings. The benefits of trigger warnings seem logical and harmless from this perspective, but seems to be getting out of hand. One example of a book that people call for trigger warnings in is, The Great Gatsby, for domestic abuse and racially motivated violence.(Waldman) If this can happen to such great literary work, where might this end?

This may seem like a small issue to some, but I think it leads to problems in our thinking. If we are trying to constantly remain aware of our speech in fear of triggering another, you are less likely to freely express yourself. We need to look at each case and find the correct action before trigger warnings and words allow people to dictate conversation. Oxford professor Timothy Ash and former director of public prosecutions Ken Macdonald wrote, “Free speech is the lifeblood of a university,” it begins, going on to observe that “inevitably, this will mean that members of the university are confronted with views that some find unsettling, extreme or offensive. The university must therefore foster freedom of expression within a framework of robust civility.”  I would not be upset if a professor included trigger warnings, believing students should react like adults with the knowledge given.

"Half Of Professors In NPR Ed Survey Have Used 'Trigger Warnings'." All Things Considered, 7 Sept. 2016. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, frccwc.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A463246826/OVIC?u=west59484&xid=f2995e4d. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.

Ash, Timothy Garton. "Safe spaces are not the only threat to free speech | Timothy Garton Ash." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 Sept. 2016. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

Waldman, Katy. "The Campus Debate Over Trigger Warnings Is at an Impasse. Science Can Help." Slate Magazine. N.p., 05 Sept. 2016. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.

Nelly, Keith. N.d. N.p. NPR

What are we protesting?

Former Obama advisor to green jobs, Van Jones, while speaking on David Axelrod’s Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago, lectured his liberal colleagues on the current situation involving safe spaces on campus. The previous week, Axelrod hosted Corey Lewandowski, former campaign manager to Trump, while students protested the event and believed that allowing Lewandowski a platform to speak may "normalize" Trump's presidency. This thought seems to be a completely irrational fear over words. We must question, not police, ideologies that do not agree with our own. I would prefer to hear all opposing views, giving myself the ability to question and reinforce my belief system while gaining a more realistic, complete view of our situation. Axelrod pointed out that protesting is part of our democracy and I would argue that it is an essential tool we must use when necessary.

One thing to consider is the purpose of protests; I feel that we are using it counterproductively and only weakening our argument. If you attempt to shut down everything you disagree with, you are being close-minded and people will begin to take you less seriously. Jones had a great perspective about the true adversity his parents had to face during the vicious civil rights battles in our country. These battles are not comparable to the fight on campus today. One quote from Jones that stuck with me was, "You are creating a kind of liberalism that the minute it crosses the street into the real world is not just useless, but obnoxious and dangerous." I completely agree with this and understand the scary path that college campuses are heading down. If we are unable to find a way to present and defend our arguments in a logical, respectable and responsible manner, we are doomed to continue slowly dismantling free speech on our campuses. Over time, this will certainly carry over into everyday life, ultimately leaving our future generations with a limited perspective and inability to think, or speak rationally, having to use protest as our only defense mechanism.

One example of using protest inefficiently was during a Georgetown University sit in during 2015, when students successfully pressured officials to change the name of two buildings that were named after former school presidents who sold slaves for campus funds. While the sit in was aimed at fighting racial inequality, settling for building name changes hardly seems like a major victory. Changing the name of a building does not change the history; in fact, it may only hide history that we should confront together. Selling humans for funding is certainly one of the many disturbing lessons from recent human history. As despicable as it was, I view it as a reminder of how far we are capable of advancing in such short time. I would argue that Georgetown has evolved for the better, becoming an increasingly diverse, inclusive campus open for anyone to attend and receive a first rate education. While I understand how this may be upsetting and controversial, I cannot help but question the effect of such protest. How are we missing the point so badly? We do not have to celebrate or hide our past, we should learn from it and attempt to make more meaningful gains for people everywhere.

                                            The sit in for racial inequality at Georgetown University 

                                                                                                                             

Haidt, Jonathan. "Van Jones’ Excellent Metaphors About the Dangers of Ideological Safety." Heterodox Academy. N.p., 2 Mar. 2017. Web. 09 Apr. 2017.

"Student Activism and Free Speech." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2016. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, frccwc.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/HMQTQY977146368/OVIC?u=west59484&xid=eada658e. Accessed 9 Apr. 2017

Riecken, Astrid. 2015. Washington, DC. Time.com. Web. 09 Apr. 2017.

Riots in Berkeley

This past February, at UC Berkeley, there was a riot that broke out after students began protesting a speech at the University by former Breitbart News senior editor, Milo Yiannopoulos. I view Milo as the ultimate troll, having the ability to get under people’s skin with his outrageous, controversial views. Rather than allow people like this to incite such violent reactions, we must be responsible for shutting his ideas down through rational, well thought out arguments. While speech may be offensive and vulgar, people have the right to their opinion and to express it nonviolently.

 In an op-ed for The Daily Californian, undocumented student Juan Prieto backed the violence by saying, “I’m here to thank the radical measures the AntiFas took to ensure my safety.” Antifa, the anti-fascism movement, was responsible for the damage that occurred to people and businesses in the town of Berkeley. Juan stood by the actions of violence that had taken place and also recommended imposing limits on hate speech. Limiting speech to prevent giving someone the opportunity to hear ideas is the wrong approach; you are under-estimating your fellow student's capacity for disseminating information. It would be an arrogant claim to say that you knew what should or should not be heard on campus. In defense of the violence, Juan claims, “Only the destruction of glass and shooting of fireworks did that. The so-called ‘violence’ against private property that the media seems so concerned with stopped white supremacy from organizing itself against my community.” It is sad that someone could imagine violence on his or her community as justifiable to keep an individual from speaking. Juan fails to grasp the importance of the first amendment, allowing fear and ignorance to control his justification for limiting speech on campus.

Are we censoring ourselves? These limitations on speech are occurring more and more frequently at universities across the world. A poll by McLaughlin & Associates shows that nearly sixty percent of college students believe that universities should restrict expression. This is an alarming number of students in favor of forcing the university into a position where it must concern itself with each individual’s happiness. Juan clearly is in favor of policies that protect his "safe-space" at any cost, selfish of his views about speech and clearly values his opinions above others. We are confusing the role universities play in our society, which is a place to understand the terrifying universe, determine our beliefs and have an open, honest environment.

Prieto, Juan. "Violence helped ensure safety of students." The Daily Californian. N.p., 07 Feb. 2017. Web. 06 Apr. 2017.

Soave, Robby. "You've been warned: speech under fire." Reason, Feb. 2016, p. 6. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, frccwc.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A439682486/OVIC?u=west59484&xid=dcd170db. Accessed 6 Apr. 2017.

Stableford, Dylan. "Trump threatens to defund Berkeley after violent protests force cancellation of Breitbart editor's speech." Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 02 Feb. 2017. Web. 06 Apr. 2017.

Are We Limiting Free Speech At Universities?

What are safe spaces? Safe spaces for students at universities have created severe limitations on ideas and speech. These safe spaces exist to surround ourselves with supportive, like-minded individuals. The problem with these zones is they develop a group mentality that feeds off of one another. On a personal level, you are having your like-minded ideas reinforced on a regular basis. This may lead to someone believing so firmly in his or her ideas, that any other idea may be quickly dismissed. Out of these groups comes ways to invalidate another who disagrees perspective. Micro-aggressions, trigger words and cultural appropriation allow students to impose their own meaning to any situation. For example, a student may accuse another of triggering through micro-aggression, which puts the accused at risk of violating school policy. These terms are very vague and can be used on a whim to ease any sort of discomfort you may be feeling.

Should campuses implement safe spaces for it's students? Not all universities have such policies, but some are creating safe spaces for students to retreat from ideas counter to their own. Instead of debate, students protecting their safe-space engage in tactics to silence thought outside of their space.  Professors and university presidents have recently been on the receiving end of outlandish protest by students with opposing views. Speakers have not been allowed to express their views on campus to protect student’s safe-spaces. All views are not valid, but we must allow people to speak freely, it is the most important right that exists in our society. Not allowing views to be openly debated and discussed will not create a safer environment, it will only slow innovation, communication and limit our freedom. While this may not be the intention of most seeking safe spaces, realizing that opposing discussions are critical to strengthening our ideas. Free speech is the foundation of all rights, capable of advancing our species toward a more perfect planet.

Vandalism during rioting at U.C. Berkeley.

Property damage in downtown Berkeley after the Milo event was canceled.2017. Berkeley. Http://www.berkeleyside.com. Web. 4 Apr. 2017.