My dad is one of those Republicans. That right wing, conservative, Presbyterian man who will, for the rest of his life, straight-ticket vote Republican. Don’t assume that I despise him because of this. Instead, I try to accept it. I respect my dad. And in most ways, I am a lot like him. I’m his fifth child and he graciously gave to me (or I took from him) his red hair. We’re buddies. And that’s why it gets difficult to call him out on his unwavering and blind dedication to the GOP. Every person is different. Just the fact that we categorize thousands of people “D” or “R” kind of drives me nuts. You cannot assume things about people based on “right” or “left.” You can assume that they want to be heard and respected. Our differences shouldn’t separate us. In most cases, if someone disagrees with what someone else says, that person doesn’t automatically hate the other. But, when it comes to politics or ideologies, peoples’ judgment can be faded in light of their extremism. My dad’s judgment can be faded. 

The issue that I chose is a bigger one now than it ever has been in the past. And it pertains to you somehow. My topic needs to be brought to the attention of university students and staff across the nation. In this essay, I want to address the recent problems with political correctness and the First Amendment on college campuses. With the political correctness trend and callousness of America’s current president, the pendulum has swung, and across the country conservative students and guest speakers on college campuses are being questioned, silenced or punished because of their beliefs. In a place where learning and developing viewpoints is promoted and encouraged, I believe that going forward we should all work together to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to express theirs. Censorship for the sake of avoiding hurt feelings may be the demise of university diversity and the existence of free speech on campus.

I used the example of my dad to address an issue prevalent today which may be inspired by the callousness of our nation’s current president. My father is an example of someone who refuses to even consider anything progressive or liberal. Sometimes he can get so caught up in politics or a certain politician that he rejects any opposition. People, this includes college students, are struggling listening to each other. To liberals, conservatives are people who have no love in their heart for poor people and to conservatives, liberals are people that want to give poor people an endless supply of money. We are quick to jump to conclusions and this makes us close-minded and judgmental. 

In a lot of ways our parents’ generation is respectful and diligent in listening. But I truly believe that we, me and you, “millennials,” young adults, college students, are better at listening. Or at least, we could be. Before I go any further there is something so crucial to this paper that I would really like you to understand about me. As a conservative student attending a public university in 2017 I try my best to be open to any new idea or lifestyle that I am introduced to. Usually, I can hear, process and store away ideas that people express that would fall under the category as more “liberal.” Sometimes, I even take them into consideration. I was not raised this way. I have to train myself every day to open my eyes, mind, and heart and I hope that while you read you can do the same.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution grants all US citizens the right to freedom of speech. Americans hold this amendment with highest regard and value and it is evident why. With civil rights and civil liberties, one of the governments jobs is to guarantee every individual a voice. Without freedom of speech for each individual Americans would not truly be free. Why, then, are college students protesting conservative speakers? And why are university administrators appeasing these students by “firing” the speakers? A few months ago, Ann Coulter, a conservative speaker, was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley but the event was canceled due to the “lack of a safe venue” (Quintana). This was the fault of the university but Ms. Coulter was the one that ultimately canceled her trip. While Ms. Coulter is a passionate and well-spoken conservative, she is not an alt-right conservative who advocates for genocide or anything extreme like that. Administrators told Coulter not to come because of unavoidable, danger due to predictable violent protests. This should raise a red flag and tell you that there is something wrong with free speech on campuses.

The First Amendment does not encourage tolerance of hate for the sake of freedom, but it does state the clear and present danger of silencing an individual. High school students usually choose college because it is the next step in their educational career. As one progresses through college, he or she realizes it is just as much about learning a trade as it is learning about who you are, what inspires you and what you believe. The right to freedom of thought and speech inspires what is called a marketplace of ideas. This means that where there is free speech there is “self-realization” and the cultivation of “qualities necessary for democratic citizenship” (Kitrosser 1995). For the marketplace to work, people, or more specifically in this case, students, must be respectful of and to others. At public universities, this is no longer the norm. No person, male or female, conservative or liberal, should be cast aside or abused because of their identity or beliefs. Instead, all types of people should be recognized and respected. Of course, this is unrealistic because there will always be hateful people who feel the need to harass others. 

Now, no one would ever advocate for taking away peoples speaking rights. But, as examples like “microagressions,” “safe spaces” and political correctness show us, sometimes administrators want to put limits on speech. These limits have backing because hateful speech has been proven to cause psychological harm. However, the notion of dismissing or preventing speech because it causes this emotional or mental harm is flawed, and this fallacy is called the “slippery slope.” This phrase can apply to anything from speech to gun laws. Basically, the idea is if people in leadership begin to censor speech a little bit, it will lead to speech being regulated too much. Greg Lukianoff says in his book “Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate” that “identifying something as “hate speech” has become an irresistible rhetorical tool precisely because evoking “hate” is so effective at shutting down painful or difficult campus debates” (Lukianoff 232). We cannot let discriminatory and vulgar language affect us, and that starts with being confident in who you are and surrounding yourself with people who love you.

A certain extent of political correctness is needed on college campuses. Students should make sure that their peers have just as much access to comfort as they do. In order to focus on school and career one must feel comfortable in their environment. We, as young adults, are learning the value that our words carry and that “it is a mistake to deny the existence of psychological harm” when it comes to harmful word choices (Cohen). There was a “period of robust and evolving debate” about political correctness movement back in the early 1990’s according to Heidi Kitrosser’s extensive research. “Political correctness” may have started as an attempt to move toward civility but ended up creating controversy and concern over the First Amendment right (Kitrosser 2002).

The creation of “safe spaces,” which is a space where people who feel discriminated against can avoid hateful speech, and “microaggressions,” which is a subtle insult or unintentional discrimination, for sake of political correctness shows that idea of censorship is no longer just an idea but a reality. Today, speech can be punished if it is known to incite violence or cause imminent danger. But Niall Ferguson wrote in his opinion piece for the Boston Globe, “If the criterion for censorship is that nobody’s feelings can be hurt, we are finished as a free society” (Ferguson). Not only is censorship a violation of the first amendment right granted to every American individual, it is also an outrageous expectation of an individual. By this I mean that conservative students cannot live in a constant state of fear that every word they say may be politically incorrect or hurt someone’s feelings. Universities usually employ administrators and professors who are Democrat or liberal. This is not a bad thing until administrators begin to argue with conservative students or uninvite conservative speakers that may come to campus. This is just teaching students that any speaker from the right, whether that be a conservative or an aggressive alt-right, is someone who discriminates and steps should be taken to keep them from opening their mouths. 

At many universities, conservatives have become the minority (in numbers). With more and more problems of withholding invitations to conservative speakers or judging conservative students an ironic dilemma comes to mind. People who are more liberal in viewpoints promote “tolerance” and “inclusivity” except when it is a viewpoint other than their own. Recently, Ben Shapiro, editor in chief at the daily wire and a conservative, visited the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Here, he was protested during his speech. The protests were actually peaceful in this case but this is an example of students’ inability to tolerate an opinion other than their own. Every day, conservative students listen to their liberal professors and classmates and, for the most part, tolerate this. But when a guest conservative speaker comes to campus, liberal students are unable to stay away. Sometimes students get violent, and in some cases, speeches are canceled due to concern for the safety of all involved. Ben Shapiro would not be categorized as an extreme “alt-right” conservative. These students only protested because they disagree with his viewpoints.

Freedom of expression will not be taken away blatantly. The creation of speech codes and safe spaces “has produced college environments that are intolerant of opposing viewpoints” (Schroeder 327). I believe that racists and bigots still exist and I will gladly protest peacefully any racial injustice or prejudice. Individually, we can put a stop to this but it is not the job of administrators to enforce rules and codes on speech that is exclusively targeted at minorities. The metaphorical pendulum has swung so far in one direction that now people who are pro-life, pro-gun or for smaller government are the victims to verbal attacks and judgement.

Despite the focus of my paper being on the treatment of conservatives, this is not just an issue that affect conservative students. Speech should not be regulated beyond presenting a clear and present danger. Dean of students at the University of Chicago said that the “institution would not condone ‘the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own’” (Brown and Mangan). College creating these safe spaces would be a “slippery slope” and would lead to unrealistic and ultimately illegal speech laws. So much of dialogue today would hurt someone’s feelings. If students can be punished for saying something politically incorrect or psychologically harmful to someone, then what is the point of speaking at all. We cannot let discriminatory and vulgar language affect us, and that starts with being confident in who you are and surrounding yourself with people who love you. 

College is a place where one should be able to explore different viewpoints and meet people from all backgrounds. It is a place where our minds should be open to debate and ready for disagreement. There are some terrible people out there, but the freedom to speak should not be changed because of these people. Even though it is mostly run by and comprised of liberal minded people currently, public universities are on track to become completely left-leaning institutions if they continue to treat conservative speakers the way they have been. The creation of “free speech zones” does not help this. “Free speech zones” were created on the University of Cincinnati campus, as they have been on many campuses. Most of the time these spaces are small and secluded from main foot traffic. Students are limited to these specific areas to do their speaking. I believe that students should stay out of quiet places like student unions and libraries, but all outdoor space on campus should be available for speaking, advocating or campaigning. 

There is a war going on on college campuses and it is the responsibility of professors and administrators to be inclusive of all viewpoints and not suppress speech of conservative speakers or students. Melvyn Fein suggests in his piece “The ‘Professionalized’ Solution to the ‘College Bubble’” that if administrators and professors “are to lead, they must be able to interact with others in a manner that motivates cooperation” (Fein 204). Students need to hold administration accountable for providing a balanced source of information and encourage diversity of thought as much as skin color. Free speech should be protected and that begins with administration and professors being an example to their students. At Southern Methodist University, students have taken this issue into their own hands and passed a free speech resolution which will deny extremism to control speech codes. Andrew Wicker, a student who is on student senate and helped write the legislation at SMU said, “the right to free speech is a universal one, and it’s one that we should deeply protect, and it’s one that if we can’t have it at a university it’s not education at that point it’s indoctrination” (SMU). 

So, as a college student addressing other college students or a college professor, I want to finish with encouragement and suggestions to prevent further, more extreme violations of the First Amendment. We are all currently creating habits that will last our whole lifetime. If we ignore or reject viewpoints or lifestyles that we do not identify with, then what is the point of going to college? College is just as much expanding your knowledge of the world and its people as it is about learning a trade. Let us not give into confirmation bias (only choosing to listen to things you believe) and instead challenge our minds with healthy debate and discourse. Martin Luther King, Jr. when he was just 18 years old gave this warning: “If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of closed-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. Be careful, “brethren!” Be careful teachers!”  (King).
