Imagine getting kicked out of a coffee shop for wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat. Imagine you’re a threatened with arrest for handing out candy from your table labeled with a “big government sucks” poster. Imagine you’re a photographer on assignment for ESPN when students and professors harass you saying, “you don’t have the right to take our photos.” Imagine waking up in your dorm room in the middle of the night to find the building across the street being destroyed by your fellow students. All these occurrences happened on college campuses, and in every instance, one’s First Amendment Right was violated. The idea that certain speech or expression can be restrained on the basis that it makes someone else uncomfortable has recently plagued college campuses, making them institutions that create closed-minded and isolated individuals. The creation of “free speech zones” and “safe spaces” on college campuses has fueled this generations intolerance of actions, opinions and viewpoints that vary from their own. While the purpose of a university is to be a “market place of ideas,” some students and professors choose ignorance over experience. If one is not encouraged in college to listen, explore and attempt to understand or accept then they will never be able to in real life. If colleges and their employees and goers continue to favor people’s feelings over free expression and tolerance, college will become pointless and the rising generation will lack basic conversational skills. The creation of safe spaces, free speech zones and informal speech codes on college campuses is a violation of students’ First Amendment rights and if viewpoint discrimination is facilitated on campus then it will only spread to the real world

The First Amendment is just as relevant and applicable on any college campus as it is in the rest of the country. Discussions about the First Amendment on college campuses and the accommodation and comfort of students have been held and most have resulted in an even more unclear understanding than before the meeting. To begin this argument, we must understand the First Amendment and its role on college campuses. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The belief that anyone in America can speak how (for the most part) they wish, wherever they wish, is still just as much in practice today as it was two-hundred years ago. We as a people have been through a lot and have realized that every race, every gender and every person deserves an equal voice. This all still applies on college campuses. On a university’s public area students and professors have the right to express themselves. Speech is protected that may be offensive. Freedom of speech is paramount. The only exception is speech that creates a clear and present danger and “Supreme Court precedent gives administrators ample authority to prohibit true threats, incitement, and conduct creating a hostile environment” (Kerska 1795). This privilege of halting speech that truly creates a clear and present danger to a person is one that we all have and one that we should capitalize on if need be. But, this right should not and cannot be taken advantage of. The idea that the First Amendment, which is of most value to most Americans, can be modified to create an inclusive environment on college campuses is concerning. 

Students and professors at colleges across the nation have recently started advocating for designated “safe spaces” on campuses for students. Safe spaces are not formally implemented by universities, but instead are created by students and sometimes even professors. Safe spaces are either “essential sanctuaries for historically marginalized groups, or they reflect a troubling desire to escape the rigorous intellectual inquiry that college should be all about” (Brown, Mangan). Safe spaces provide one an escape from the discomfort of micro-traumas from speech that bothers them. This idea is acceptable for victims of assault or people that deal with a serious mental trauma, but when it extends to class rooms or is used as an excuse to remove or silence someone that is when it becomes unacceptable. A college republican was recently kicked off a Fordham University College campus coffee shop for wearing a Make America Great Again hat. The girl that claimed to be the president of the student club that runs the coffee shop said that it violated the shop’s “safe space” promise that it makes to its customers. She was just looking out for her customers, but isn’t the man wearing the hat her costumer as well? We have become an emotion-driven culture and this can be problematic when it comes to human right and American right that is free speech. Some college campuses such as Ohio University only allow protesting or solicitation, which could be as simple as handing out fliers, in areas called free speech zones, which are usually outside of buildings, secluded from busier areas. While this is legal, “when implemented by public universities, they should be deemed unconstitutional” (Kitrosser 2036). Universities are beginning to be run by emotions and “in an attempt to combat what many universities have deemed to be hateful speech, universities across the country have enacted speech codes for their students” (Schroeder 327). They have created these areas so that students do not feel uncomfortable or distracted, where they can go and be surrounded by people who think and feel the same as they do. A public area should be open to any student or professor to civilly voice their opinions without concern of being punished for what they said. 

Students across the nation have been advocating against “microaggressions” or “statements which communicate hostile, derogatory or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership” (ReasonTV). I would revise this definition a bit by adding in the word “unintentionally” before “target persons,” because while “microaggressions” may sometimes be voiced intentionally, more often than not they are only received as offensive or aggressive. Many millennials on college campuses believe administrators or government should take action against these “microaggressions”; one example being “God bless you.” Students have become emotionally driven and they have started campaigns that encourage others to think before they speak. It is unrealistic to expect someone to think through everything they plan to say to confirm that it will not offend anyone. Instead of ignoring these offenses, students are searching for empathy and an escape from prejudices. This is a valid desire and request for morality but one cannot request for rules to be implemented or spaces to be made to prevent hurt feelings, especially when most “microaggressions” would be considered unintentional or exaggerated. While students can have calls to action to fight “microaggressions,” the battle should never go further. By the time that one comes to the conclusion that what they are going to say is not going to offend anyone, it would be far too late to say it. 

The expectation of one person to consider the overall effect of all their words or even common phrases on anyone in a racial, ethnic or gender minority group is a violation of one’s First Amendment right. The idea that a college can become more inclusive by silencing certain individuals is troubling (Kerska 1797). Let us not lose our passion to defend, uphold and honor our greatest freedom as Americans. Safe spaces and microaggressions also encourage the popularity and normality of viewpoint discrimination. And more often than not on college campuses, the conservative lifestyle is ridiculed and judged by the majority of students and professors. There is also a movement to include “trigger warnings” for students to warn them that some content in the classroom may trigger negative emotions or memories of traumatic events. I believe that trigger warnings are appropriate for some content taught can be harsh and trigger certain memories or emotions for someone who has had bad experiences. Despite the acceptability of trigger warnings given on syllabi or announced, I believe that the creation of specific areas on college campuses where students are confined to speak or denied the right to speak is a violation of his or her right to free speech. Along with this, speech codes are an unrealistic expectation, and punishing or ridiculing people for hurting someone’s feelings unintentionally is unspeakable. 

The current political environment of today, where debate overpowers dialogue and winning is more important than understanding, has bled into collegiate affairs. Students are struggling to be open to discussion because they feel as though they must be the martyr for their beliefs or “side.” Dialogue is a two-sided conversation where, even if one is attempting to persuade the other, people are civil and understanding. Debate is still a crucial part or college, but in their everyday lives, college students should not be ignorant of and passive aggressive toward people who believe and live differently than them. Nicholas Schroeder said in his law journal that “the combination of campus speech codes and political correctness has produced college environments that are intolerant of opposing viewpoints” (Schroeder 327). Speech zones and codes make students, who are not necessarily “minorities,” feel constricted, vulnerable, and suppressed. The idea that one can be silenced for the comfort of others is a movement that should be disregarded and denounced immediately. Students must be able to have civil discourse and ask questions of their peers instead of making assumptions about them and their motives. There is value in listening to people and having a progressive conversation that may have an outcome where both participants are challenged. If we continue to lack devalue conversational skills, dialogue will have no purpose and will get us nowhere. It should not be someone’s first inclination to jump to conclusions about the words from someone’s mouth and the intention behind those words. The more closed-minded we are, the more polarized we become. 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). Either people are becoming more racist, discriminatory and hateful, or they are becoming more sensitive and desperate. It is not the role of college administrators or the government to police speech, it is the role of individuals to question or address someone if he or she is being intentionally hateful.

College serves another purpose besides teaching students a trade or profession. Whether it is while they are in college or later in their lives, students realize that going to college, being surrounded by new people and new lifestyles, and having an array of differently ideologies and beliefs taught to them makes them a more well-rounded and informed individual. Professors and students should practice attentiveness regularly so that when the time comes for debate, he or she is respectful and civil. College is where one is on their own, learning habits that will stick with them for life. If disregarding or criticizing speech you don’t like is normalized on college campuses, then why would one ever escape his or her own echo chamber as an adult. College is meant to be a place of discovery for so many people so implementing rules that hinder those discoveries will defeat the purpose of college. There is not one lifestyle, belief, race, religion, or gender that is right and the utilization of free speech on campuses should reflect that truth. Political polarization is influencing the way some live their lives and the dean of Yale Law school says, “the litigation system is premised on the hope that truth will emerge if we ensure that everyone has a chance to have her say” and this is just as relevant to speech on campus.

  “Viewpoint discrimination” and living in an “echo-chamber” is not more evident on college campuses than when it comes to guest speakers. Just in the past year there have been multiple incidents of students violently protesting guest speakers, who are usually conservatives. The protests are fine for the First Amendment protects the right to peacefully protest, but in some cases the students got physical and violent but were not punished. Instead of condoning this behavior, administrators are postponing or even canceling these events due to impending “danger.” Why do students feel obligated to stand in front of a speaker and refuse him or her the right to speak? Students are assuming the intentions of these conservative speakers are ill and denying them their First Amendment right. Recently, students at University of Florida protested and raised hands while alt-right Richard Spencer was attempting to speak. Some students were unable to understand that while you can despise his rhetoric, he still has every right to speak, ideology aside. A student can protest what he preaches but he or she can also choose to ignore his event. The line between protesting the content of someone’s speech and the speech itself is fading away and administrators are only enabling this to continue and flourish. 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 other in a manner that motivated cooperation.” (Fein 204). Civility starts in the classroom. 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).

Free speech is not a conception. It is reality. If we begin to silence some people a little here and there, our society will go down a slippery slope and we will find violations of the First Amendment more harsh and unrealistic thank now. There are still racists, sexist, and bigots out there, but the solution to changing those people is not to silence them or retreat so far from them we can no longer hear what they have to say. In the age of advanced technology, it is more difficult to converse with or even confront someone in person, and the creation of “safe spaces” only intensifies this issue. 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 harsh word choices (Cohen). It is our individual responsibility to be as moral, fair, and righteous as we can be for the sake of others. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to the problem of hate speech or speech that makes someone uncomfortable. Censorship is not the answer, and “if the criterion for censorship is that nobody’s feelings are hurt, we are finished as a free society” (Ferguson).
