, Research Paper
On college campuses today the debate rages to limit certain kinds of speech that is racists and sexist, some students say that they have a right to say what ever they what because of the First Amendment and doing so will a volition of this right, but this kind of speech threatens the rights of minorities and dose let them engage in the leering process. Freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas are important in colleges, but when this type of speech is allowed onto college campus it creates an atmosphere where minorities are left out and do not participate in the exchange of ideas, and in the learning process.
Some universities are trying to curtail this kind of speech buy putting in place speech codes but they are meet with unsuccessful results. Some say that the speech codes are not in-forced or the institution ignores them. The power of the university to abolish this kind of speech depends on how much the institution is willing to participate in the process, and its ability to punish the speaker, but is censorship the answer in the fight of this kind speech.
Censorship is powerful weapon in fight of this kind but it can also backfire. They can use it to hear what you want to hear leave out the main idea, give only one point of view. Which is not conducive for the exchange of ideas in a learning institution, which is the main purpose of speech, as Eleanor Holmes Norton has said: ?It is technically impossible to write an anti-speech code that cannot be twisted against speech nobody means to bar. It has been tried and tried and tried?
But is speech codes and censorship what is the answer to this problem, then what is the solution to the problem. Some say to surprise that more speech not less needed to educate others and provide equality. Banning hate speech creates an expectation to the first amendment, which strips way it?s meaning. The purist of education will come from discussion of cultural differences, historical happenings and present-day use of the language. To teach students to refrain from such of language would deny an opportunity to further explore the meaning of equality and understanding of the words, which a tolerant society and democrat society must allow. As the dean of University of Chicago of Law Geoffrey Stone as said ?The social climate is suddenly less tolerant to free expression across a wide range of issue. One theme in all of these cases is that we can adjust our concept of free speech, slice off a few tiny corners and leave the core intact. But that?s the argument that always been used to justify restricting speech?. I agree with the dean that we have become a less tolerant society, and that w