“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

Coming from the mind of America’s first President, free speech is not only a pivotal tenet of American society but also that of the free world. In fact, it comprises the essence of freedom as the right to speak equates with the right to express in most all environments. Yet despite this perpetual truth, free speech continues to face challenges, with perhaps the biggest occurring on the grounds of the college. What seems an absurd conflict at face value appears to be even more detrimental, as it threatens the sanctity of the institutions which mold a young generation into adults who will shape the world into a better place. Simply put, free speech on campus must remain in order to ensure the efficacy of our colleges in achieving the aforementioned goal. As former US Secretary of the Treasury puts it, “Universities must stand for the authority of ideas, not the idea of authority.” The idea of free speech exists as a safeguard of an innate human right, the likes of which supersede those gained from governmental entities such as constitutions, rather it is a quintessential freedom given to us for the sole purpose of furthering the societal development through the purest form of expression.

Those against free speech on campus and free speech, in general, cite the term hate speech as a large reason why. For this reason, it is important to delineate what exactly hate speech entails. Strictly speaking, in America, the Supreme Court does not create a separate category for this type of speech. Rather, it says“Speech cannot be punished just because of its hateful content. But when you get beyond content and look at the context, speech with a hateful message may be punished, if in a particular context it directly causes certain specific, imminent, serious harm.” In a broader sense, there are numerous examples throughout history where those who are of an opinion which differs from the majority are scrutinized and even ostracized. In fact, it can be reasonably stated that humanity values those who speak out their opinions regardless of what their present-day society thinks because future ones undoubtedly will value that opinion more. New York Law School Professor Nadine Strossencorroboratesthis because she “believes the government should not use its power to suppress an unfavorable idea even when it is a viewpoint that ‘the vast majority of the community despises.’” It is crucial to retain that barring an extremely offensive and dangerous thought, free speech must not be limited on the grounds that it may bring about hate speech. Moreover, the hate in the speech is (usually) subjective, and when we safely assume that all exceptions are handled with the proper penalty, we arrive at the conclusion that restricting the right to speech under the presumption that it may differ from the majority is more of a crime than the alleged hate speech could ever be.

Throughout this debate, we must remember the qualification placed on the free speech, which is how it pertains to collegiate life. There is a subtle layer added on top of the general free speech conflict, which is the added effect of how it functions on campuses. As Huffington Post writer Nadirah Farah Foley states, “College campuses are — or should be — designed for learning. With that in mind, framing “free speech” incidents in terms of pedagogy while considering issues of power might yield a more productive conversation.” To this end, research studies have shown the net positive results of college education on the mindsets of a future generation of working adults. The Interfaith Youth Core took a nationally representative survey of 7,000 students from over 120 universities and found, “48 percent viewed liberals more favorably in their second year of college than when they arrived on campus. 50 percent also viewed conservatives more favorably. In other words, college attendance is associated, on average, with gains in appreciating political viewpoints across the spectrum.” The data shows, even with simultaneously occurring debates about free speech, a college environment stimulates tolerance of the entire political spectrum by opening the minds of students through education. Moreover, a 2018 Gallup-Knight Foundation representative survey reported, “vast majority of students (70 percent) said that they preferred their campus to be an ‘open learning environment’ where they might be exposed to offensive speech.” Once again, this not only proves the acceptance of free speech on campus but also the value of it in the educational setting. On this note, Samuel J. Abrams, a professor of politics, states“The data on faculty views about free speech is encouraging, revealing widespread and strong support for intellectual openness, the cornerstone of higher education and social progress.” Support from faculty demonstrates a wholesome effort towards a freer and more powerful college workplace where the intellectual capacities of our youth are pushed to the brink by a wide array of opinions. This, in essence, is what free speech on campus allows for: the most efficient and effective way of fostering substantial development in the minds of our youth.

 “The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion.” Adding onto the way philosopher John Stuart Mill put it, free speech is the sole way of attaining true knowledge in any subject. Interestingly enough, a philosophical lens placed on this topic reveals the most about it. In the first place, any subject can be modified and refined simply by placing the words “philosophy of” in front of said topic. What such a qualifier accomplishes is creating a mindset which places utmost importance on the right way to go about the specific topic. Defining the right way can either mean in terms of morals, ethics, or overall effectiveness. On this related note, the philosophy of free speech on campus can be analyzed in this manner. The morality of free speech is realized once we assume morality as an objective view of how to live. Debating the objectivity of morality is a topic for another day, most likely for another couple centuries if you take historical attempts to solve it, so we can assume every human will have the same moral backbones. Every rational being will agree a fundamental right to expression exists therein and until another means of communications is streamlined, speech continues to be the easiest mode of human contact. Thus, this right logically extends to the educational sphere, seeing as the setting where our future workforce is developed must contain the same conditions as the world in which they will aspire to thrive in later on. In terms of ethics, in America, free speech is maintained by the Constitution. Nonetheless, it is safe to say all humans live by a higher code, regardless of whether it is taken from John Locke’s state of nature or the lives of humans not bound by a government. This core state of existence is a free one and in it reside all the freedoms which humans yearn to hold in the world. Freedom of speech is no different. Strictly adhering to campus life, the ethics of free speech rest in the belief that students must be allowed to fully express themselves- a notion backed by the fact that free students are motivated students and there is nothing a group of motivated students cannot accomplish in this world. Finally, on the idea of overall effectiveness, we need not look any further than our own lives for the answer. Look past democratic nations. Look past attempting to restrict the restrictiveness of nations who appear to confine every single aspect of the lives of their citizens. All we need to do to understand the power of free speech is to look in the mirror. We are the very best versions of ourselves when we have the ability to freely think, act, and speak. Many people like to compare words with actions in the hopes of eliciting which one holds greater power. Yet, it is only when words are coupled with actions that we see true change in the world. To this extent, seeing as I am free to act in any way insofar as it does not endanger any other being, should not my words have this same freedom if the world is to truly improve?