Academic Freedom: Cal State University Of Fullerton

According to some theories, this should limit the ability of these institutions to restrict the First Amendment rights of their students because these institutions are technically branches of the government and it would be unconstitutional for the government to limit freedoms of speech or the press. Private colleges and universities should theoretically should have more power to limit the rights of their students because they are not a government entity (Sarabyn, n.d.). The Hazelwood, Kincaid and Hosty cases, however, show that this is not true because these cases all involve public

Lately in the United States, there is tension. Citizens do or say things that others prefer not to see or hear. But, when it comes to professionals, such as professors at universities, making these offensive statements it is a whole different circumstance. Some professors are offered a contract in which they are allowed to do and say whatever they please, but others are not. Even though the amount of tenure contracts offered are decreasing, Jeanne Zaino, the author of “Offensive Speech and the Contingency Clause: Adjuncts who are outspoken are losing their jobs,” published on the website Inside Higher Ed., believes professors and their jobs should still be protected under the First Amendment. Zaino references back to the story of two professors who publicly stated very unpopular opinion. They ended up fired due to their public statements. According to Zaino, these two should have not been fired. On the other hand, the professors should have known better because they represent a university. These professors knew what the consequences would be after making their statements. Besides the fact that I disagree with Jeanne Zaino, the essay is fairly written. It is not perfect due to its poor assumptions of what the reader must already know and believe. Although, these are key components, the author did a good job by explaining what was currently happening and showed a decent amount of research to back up their credibility. Zaino did a decent job writing her persuasive piece.

There are two questions that this court must answer today; First, does Keller’s speech have First Amendment protections? Second, does the University of California, Delphi have the ability to restrict such speech? Keller argues that the university violated his First Amendment rights by attempting to restrict his expression of disfavored views. The university contends that Keller’s actions were disruptive to the learning environment, and thus suspended; not violating his rights to free speech.

In the book Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate, the author Greg Lukianoff, emphasizes the importance and necessity of freedom of speech on college campuses and the lack of critical thinking skills. The infringement on students rights will continue occurring until people unite and demand a change. This is what Greg Lukianoff and the

“Free Inquiry? Not on Campus” by John Leo is an important essay that shows exactly how important it is to protect people's political views and opinions. In Leo's essay, he elaborates how times have changed and how we live in more of a liberal left-wing society and because of this everyone has to be more politically correct. Leo talks about the social change universities and colleges on how they used to promote free speech, but now are more like the speech police telling us what's opinions you should have on any given subject and any other opinion is considered wrong. Leo gives an example of this and writes “in October 2007, for instance, a student mob stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down speeches by two members of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration group.The students shouted they have no right to

In the article “Universities are Right to Crack Down on Speech and Behavior,” Eric Posner uses science, logic, reason, and morality to challenge the idea that college students are mature young adults who deserve the right to control their own behavior and to exercise unfettered free speech on campus. Furthermore, Posner contends that speech and sex codes have not always been lax but they changed drastically in the 1960s in response to the circumstances of the era. Consequently, the changes have brought about unwelcome freedoms that students themselves are currently rejecting. According to Posner, both parents and students agree that it’s time to for college administrators to resume a more conventional role in managing the speech and behavior

In late 1787, our founding fathers of the United States developed a new democratic government system that balanced power between the government and its people. In addition, they wrote the Bill of Rights to give the general public a voice; ensuring “freedom of speech”. Today, however, freedom of speech has taken an unexpected turn in education by creating a professor watchlist on the web. Truthfully, the Professors Watchlist denies the right of a teacher to express his/her opinions in the comfort of their own classrooms, and as a result, may not feel at ease with their teaching tactics.

In his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.

Universities that have been trying to quash free speech have encountered some court reversals of their attempts. But campus leftists have not given up. The newest university gambit to limit speech mirrors the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines concerning sexual harassment in the workplace, (creating a hostile environment) or they attempt to base their speech code on the "fighting words" doctrine enunciated by the Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

As American universities and colleges grow their demographics, diversity and ideas there is a continued and an accelerated debate regarding freedom of speech within these higher education institutions. College campuses are struggling to simultaneously provide a learning environment that is inclusive to traditionally unrepresented students while also providing an environment that allows for ideas to be challenged and debated no matter how offensive or controversial.

In the pursuit of education, students strive to learn and develop their understanding of the world that surrounds them. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of the school administration to provide the means to that end. Yet, there is a polarized divide among schools and their interpretation of freedom of speech. This occurrence is experienced primarily at the university level but can be seen at all levels of education. At the epicenter of this dispute is the notion of censorship, specifically whether or not it is feasible to restrict what can and cannot be said by faculty and students alike. Advocates of freedom of speech assert that censorship violates our First Amendment right, a liberty that is inalienable. Proponents also argue that

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom

Regardless of how the phrase and the autonomy of the First Amendment is challenged, religion and the need to maintain separation of church and state has been a great contest of the United States legal systems. The court system typically will remove itself from decisions within the higher education institution and leave such decisions to the administrators themselves to make the best decision for the organization, unless those topics in question legitimately violate a federal statute or clause related to the Constitution directly (McFarlane, 2012). Therefore, we will examine the application of the First Amendment within higher education.

Authors of both articles disagree the suppressing and censoring of free speech observed in some universities. While Rampell is disheartened by violent reactions of students upon reading a conservative essay written by a ‘moderate conservative’ in a student newspaper, Stone and Creeley are worried, in general, about the broader measures of censoring free speech across universities. Rampell, in particular, had direct access to the writer of the conservative essay, which gave her a deeper understanding of the actual reactions and subsequent happenings. Stone and Creeley had off hand access to the past happenings of three individual cases of censoring free speech expressions by teaching faculties. In one case, a university dissented to a faculty member’s published essay on

After considering both parties’ opinions, I have decided that I agree with the university president. I agree that states should support their universities, without trying to control what is learned and taught within them. Scholars and researchers should be permitted to flourish in the intellectual disciplines of the arts and sciences, exploring and expanding the realm of knowledge. To deny students the right to study subjects such as literature, history, and philosophy would simply be an unethical deprivation of the “Highest Good.”