Imagine being part of a group that believes in an idea. Then taking that idea to the streets to express your fundamental right of freedom of speech in order for the idea to be heard. And then imagine your university, which you pay for with tuition and tax money, decides to shut you down. Why? They either disagree with what you are saying or how you are saying it. Either way, they just suppressed your rights. Free speech is a human right protected within the United States Constitution. The Constitution states, “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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Art. I Am. I). This means every person has the right to express freely without restriction; however, it is not the case on college campuses. Universities are recreating the meaning of free speech which makes the First Amendment not ring true on campus.

Free speech remains a complex idea that encompasses multiple forms of speech – both good and bad. In the article “The Pros and Cons of Free Speech on College Campus”, Morgan Rowe explained the benefits and drawbacks of free speech. The pros Rowe spoke on were that free speech creates academic diversity and discussion on sensitive topics, and the idea that stopping freedom of speech does not equate to stopping hate speech. The cons of free speech are that it promotes hate speech, and universities become held responsible for damages (Rowe). However, these pros obviously outweigh the cons. Joanne Jacobs shows her shock about the view of free speech by college students in her article “Is Free Speech Only for Nice Speech.” Jacobs talks about how recent statistics show more and more students believe offensive speech should be drowned out and that it would be okay to use violence to stop a speaker. Jacobs would obviously disagree with Rowe’s list of cons for free speech as Jacobs is a promoter of allowing all speech – whether hate or not – and would view Rowe’s stance on speech helping hate speech as silly. Rowe, being more impartial to the subject as someone trying to represent both ideas, might comply and agree to Jacobs. However, both authors certainly recognize the importance of freedom of speech, and present reasons why universities should not limit it. The promotion of freedom of speech only allows for progress - especially in the education field. College cannot fulfill the promise of preparing students for the adult world with limited speech.

Free speech zones are a major system in which universities restrict free speech. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, known commonly as FIRE, “1 in 6 of America’s 400 top colleges have ‘free speech zones.’” Also, according to FIRE, free speech zones have three common characteristics: pre-registration, limited time frame, and limited space (Foundation). This means people must sign up for a free speech zone and are assigned a limited time and space in which they can express their ideas. Now, free speech zones are not a new thing. They originated back during the 1960s when students protested against the Vietnam War. The zones act as a space on campuses where students and outsiders are allowed to hold protests, hand out flyers, and do anything else entitled within the First Amendment. However, universities should not be able to declare spaces for people to do the things just said. Free speech zones inhibit the activities they promise by not allowing free speech to be practiced everywhere on a campus. Free speech zones are inherently restrictive to speech and limit the one thing the zones promise. Dr. Jay Bender, professor at the University of South Carolina Law School and College of Journalism, spoke in a TedxTalk about the history of free speech on campus. Bender fervently spoke about how restriction on college campuses is a huge violation of rights, whether the speech was Vietnam protests or segregation protests. In more recent history, Peter McKnight argued against free speech violations in 2004 in his article “Universities Continue to Fail Free Speech.” McKnight highlighted a story about a professor who received extreme backlash on a paper he published. The professor was called to be fired and vandalism occurred in response to the professor’s paper. Luckily the professor was not fired, but this story that McKnight shares shows how fragile free speech has been on campus, since a simple paper caused a crazy reaction (McKnight). Universities have gone too far with their power over free speech. Violation of everyone’s rights should be revoked, and true freedom of speech should stand at all universities.

The University of South Carolina has restrictions on freedom of speech, though not as severely enforced as other universities. At the University of South Carolina, there are four areas that serve as free speech zones. According to the university’s policy, the zones the Russell House Student Union (specific spots within), the portion of Greene Street blocked off from cars, Pickens Street Bridge, and a specific spot of the Coliseum. Any forms of demonstrations or protests outside these areas are restricted and will be shut down. On top of that, these zones require a sign-up with the events coordinator and can only occur during daylight (STAF). Now, the university deserves credit because they are not totalitarian with these spaces nor go out on a limb to shut down speech outside of the spaces. There are often church groups handing out bibles and they are not in the zones. However, the fact that these zones exist gives South Carolina the power to restrict speech on very little basis if they wish.

In regard to free speech zones, experts and nonexperts have argued vehemently over their credibility. Additionally, there have been strikes about these zones. Collin Binkley, a writer for US News, argued free speech zones are a violation of the first amendment. Binkley provides a great example of freedom of speech being restricted on a college campus unnecessarily at Los Angeles Pierce College in 2016. Kevin Shaw, a student there, was barred from handing out U.S. Constitutions even though he was in a free speech zone. Whether the college felt like this was some sort of attack, or they just did not want students to know about their right to freedom of speech, Shaw is now suing the college with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Shaw’s lawsuit is one of many the foundation is helping, and many campuses have unlawful, unjust restrictions on the freedom of speech (Binkley). Universities cannot be actively pursuing students and stopping their first amendment rights – it is not lawful nor within the universities actual powers. Whether passing out constitutions or holding protests, the right to freedom of speech is lawful under the Constitution and cannot be limited by universities 

Additionally, states like Colorado and Utah have banned the use of free speech zones (Binkley). While the perfect way to stop free speech zones would to have a state wide ban, that seems unrealistic. The reason being is both hate speech and benign speech are used in a multitude of ways. Nat Hentoff, in his paper “Speech Codes On The Campus And Problems Of Free Speech,” explains issues of race hate speech on campus and how different campuses have reacted to it. One idea he promoted is that people have to learn how to deal with adversarial situations (Hentoff). Maybe Hentoff would argue with Binkley and explain instead of banning free speech zones, the way of fixing them would be to fix the persons who want them. Binkley might argue back that these are similar things, but Hentoff would perhaps approach the idea of toughening students up and not just banning restrictions. Both would agree something must be done, which would be the correct stance to have. Whether or not free speech zones are eliminated, they represent one way in which universities have recreated the meaning of free speech and made the First Amendment not ring true on campus.

Another way universities attack freedom of speech is through restricting public speakers, both liberal and conservative. Milo Yiannopoulos, a far right speaker, was stopped from speaking at the University of California Berkeley earlier this year after violent protests from both faculty and students broke out in order to try and stop Milo from speaking. Barricades were set up in order to protect Yiannopoulos, but the protestors broke down the barricades and Yiannopoulos was evacuated. Awhile back, Ben Shapiro, a conservative public speaker, was set to host an event costing the University of California Berkeley 600 thousand dollars. The reason for this high price was due to the fear of violent protesters; therefore extra protection was required, and expensive. Police units surrounded the building hosting Shapiro and barricades were set up, but Shapiro was not stopped from hosting his event. These examples show how extreme the idea of stopping speech people do not agree with has become. Due to events like this, many universities have taken action to restrict speakers. The universities will argue that it is too much of a hassle to deal with cases like Yiannopoulos, but if a student group wants to have a speaker at their campus, like the College Republicans wanted Yiannopoulos, then there is no hassle when protecting free speech. However, free speech should not be restricted. Dr. Jay Bender, Peter McKnight, and Joanne Jacobs would all be horrified by the stoppage of public speakers. McKnight and Jacobs would highlight how students and faculty need to learn to listen to speech they disagree with as universities are places of learning and all sides must be heard in an argument. Bender would be against the idea of stopping the speaker, but would not be against protestors of the public speakers. Bender is a supporter of the idea of protesting. Once again, restricting public speakers represents another way in which universities have recreated the meaning of free speech and made the First Amendment not ring true on campus.

A huge reason universities have been cancelling speakers like Milo is because of student reaction to events. Students categorize Milo and other public speakers as promoters of hate speech. Thus, students will protest, often violently, in order to stop the speakers from appearing. The environment of safe zones, like free speech zones, on campus has nourished oversensitivity around speech. The idea that hate speech must be stopped at all costs is ridiculous because student definition of hate speech is skewed from its true definition. Students identify speech they do not agree with as hate speech and react accordingly. According to Joanne Jacobs’s research, “Thirty-nine percent of college students believe the First Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech.” Also, Jacobs’s says, “Nineteen percent of students — 30 percent of males, 10 percent of females — said it was acceptable to use violence to prevent the speaker from speaking” (Jacobs). These statistics, even though they are not a majority, are too high. Many students today struggle with understanding free speech and how hate speech is free speech. Just this past July, the Supreme Court reasserted hate speech was protected under the first amendment (Volokh). Even if these public speakers were advocating hate speech, which they are not, the speech is still protected. And students, of course, have the right to protest. However, this environment of stopping speakers that the university or students do not agree with only serves to further stop progress on college campuses.

Universities also have other means of stopping public speakers. The University of Northern Texas, according to the newspaper the Observer, has significantly pushed for conservative speakers at their university as opposed to liberal speakers. The University of Northern Texas is paying Donald Trump Jr., an obvious conservative, $100,000 to come speak at their university. Over the past decade, it has notoriously hired more conservative speakers than liberal, though some liberal speakers like Bill Nye have spoken at the university (Bernd). Now, it is not as drastic as completely eliminating public speakers from the university, because the university has rights to choose who they want to pay to come to their school, but it is still an interesting tactic. Jacobs, a promoter of all speech, might push for this to be changed as he would believe it to be limiting the speech of liberal speakers. Bender might push for this as well. The problem being is with their educational backgrounds, they may respect the right of the university to spend their money how the university wants to. This creates an interesting dynamic in how the university can limit free speech without infringing on the students’ rights.

Universities do infringe on students’ rights in bizarre ways that do not make rational sense and thus have become the restrictor of free speech. In fact, students are also an enemy to free speech on campus. Many students fight against the idea of hate speech being allowed on campus. According to FIRE, 31% of students think hate speech should not be protected (Foundation). Also, many colleges have had to punish students because of complaints from other students. According to Rachel Frommer from Business Insider, “At Duke, student activists demanded disciplinary sanctions for students who attend “culturally insensitive” parties, mandatory implicit-bias training for all professors,  and loss of the possibility of tenure if a faculty member engages in speech “if the discriminatory attitudes behind the speech,” as determined by an unnamed adjudicator, “could potentially harm the academic achievements of students of color” (Frommer). This goes to show how crazy the environment on campuses has become because now even students are trying to inhibit free speech. 

Now, obviously, sometimes there is a need for universities to control speech in certain situations. If there is a riot occurring on Greene Street and it is completely interrupting classes and hurting students, then yes, the university has the right to shut that down. If there is a group of people trying to use their right to free speech as an excuse to attack university property, then yes, the university has the right to shut that down. There are certain situations revolving around the need for shutting down speech and it would be irrational to expect the university to not deal with them. A prime example would be at the University of Virginia, where white supremacist protests caused a state of emergency. The university should have the power to protect their campus in cases like this; also, it is important for the state police to help and have the primary power to deal with these situations. However, the university’s power to restrict speech into zones and stop public speakers is in itself a violation of rights.

Universities must fix their corrupt view on freedom of speech. In order for true free speech to stand on the university then the free speech zones must go and the stoppage of guest speakers must end. Whether the state of South Carolina or the University discards these practices, it does not matter—they are a violation of rights that should be revoked. The most important change must occur within the students themselves. If students cannot accept free speech, then no administrational change will have any lasting effect. Free speech on campus must ring true in order to have students who progress forward in society.
