Analysis and Evaluation of Arguments

Analysis and Evaluation of Arguments

The debate concerning hate speech in college campuses has continued to elicit sharp yet intellectual arguments between both sides. Generally, it is rather noteworthy to see people rise up against acts of discrimination and prejudice in order to prevent further segregation especially among minority populations. Nonetheless, in a complex system such as the American education structure, there is proof of contradiction in relation to individual expression. On one hand, Rauch claims that restricting hate speech infringes on intellectual pluralism. In addition to this, Silvergate and Lukianoff further assert that any person is capable of exuding his or her views regardless of the implications they may impose on other people. Alternately, Stillwell claims that the fight against hate speech in universities involves restricting people from expressing opinions that predispose towards prejudice. In light of the claims expressed above, is it true that the freedom of speech comprises the main argument based on the two opposing sides?

Overview of the Hate Speech Argument

In overview, the Freedom of Speech is a basic and essential privilege provided within the American constitution. Present within the First Amendment, the constitutional right offers people with a platform to exude their views and perspectives liberally under limited constraints. However, pertaining to the issue concerning free speech in college campuses, the manner in which students and academicians can exhibit their thoughts regarding sensitive topics construes a dilemma between liberal expression and ethics. For instance, a professor or lecturer may choose to research on the different levels of intelligence among African Americans and white Americans. Even though such a study may infringe on ethical boundaries based on the way it may pit both sides against each other, it is a platform for the academician to express himself liberally. In addition to this, the doctrine of academic freedom further enables him to conduct such a study without interference from the educational institutions or the students.

Arguments for Hate Speech

Nonetheless, the argument regarding free speech in college campuses has established differing opinions within the education fraternity. On one hand, supporters of free speech (hate speech) through logic assert that such expression is considerably beneficial since it provides a platform for the institution of intellectual pluralism. According to Rauch (1), intellectual pluralism is rational since it enables individuals to pit prejudice against itself in order to advance knowledge. Furthermore, by challenging conventional social norms, intellectual pluralism allows people to be critical of their convictions and beliefs, rather than dormant and unaware of the fallibility that such mores may possess. Therefore, restricting people from expressing their views hinders the attainment of knowledge. Concerning American campuses, supporting free speech is important especially in the dissemination of advantageous information. This is because it enables academicians to practice academic freedom and enable students to exercise scientific research.

Additionally, Rauch (1) also surmises that allowing prejudice motivates people to be logical and critical of their beliefs and opinions. Indeed, the author states that, “…stamping out prejudice really means forcing everyone to share the same prejudice, namely that of whoever is in authority” (Rauch 1). Simply, prejudice is a significant tool in the transmission of new ideas and discoveries that may further the society in the end. However, introducing mechanisms that subdue the freedom of expression for the sake of bias and bigotry only restricts individuals from conveying their personal perspectives and listening to what others have to say regarding a particular subject. For instance, techniques such as speech codes deny students of their rights to free speech based on the constraints and permissions they impose on topics. Undeniably, such mechanisms are restrictive based on the manner students practice them prejudicially in order to suit their political ideologies. This is evident where Silverglate and Lukianoff (635) state that, “A whole generation of American students is learning that its members should hide their deeply held unpopular beliefs”. Based on this, it is evident that the limitation of free speech limits academic intellect.

Moreover, Lawrence III (628) states that placing restrictions over speech also imposes negative effects on the affected people. In order to appeal logically, the author utilizes the issue of racism in order to assert the damage that restricting expression on such a sensitive topic may pose unfavorable implications on the victims. Lawrence III states that the freedom of speech is “especially important for minorities because often it is their only vehicle for rallying support for the redress of their grievances” (629). Explaining this, Lawrence III asserts that allowing individuals to exude their perspectives without employing restrictions allows the affected to address their concerns intellectually. Ensuring that such a democratic right undergoes practice provides further room for establishing equality. This is because people have the liberty to advance their opinions. Therefore, restricting speech will only be difficult for both the majority and minority populations since it will make it difficult for the former to express themselves and the latter to challenge such convictions and grievances rationally.

Arguments Against Hate Speech

On the other hand, Stillwell states that free speech, due to its lack of limitations, only acts as a platform for exercising discrimination against minority populations and women. Supporting this personally, the manner in which they exude such claims is rather questionable. Instead of appealing logically or ethically, Stillwell claims that opposers of hate speech use force and disrespect in order to convey their disparate perspectives concerning the freedom of expression. For instance, there is evidence of mob rule in college campuses, which limits individuals from liberal expression. According to Stillwell (632), “America’s college campuses, once thought to be bastions of free speech, have become increasingly intolerant toward the practice”. From this, the author states that campuses nowadays restrict the dissemination of free speech. For instance, public speakers conveying their views concerning responsive issues such as bigotry and religion experience harassment from a certain faction of students regularly.

As irresponsible and illogical as it may seem, these situations consistently take place in college campuses. Indeed, if the public speaker does not speak of views that conform to the students’ ideals, then mobbing will occur forcing the individual to be unable to explain himself or herself rationally. Nonetheless, mob rule poses negative effects on free speech in universities. The most common of this can only be reiterated through Rauch. As mentioned, “…stamping out prejudice really means forcing everyone to share the same prejudice, namely that of whoever is in authority” (Rauch 1). In explanation, the author surmises that restricting biased speech only implements such prejudice amongst people in relation to the leader’s beliefs. The same applies to mob rule. By rebutting non-conformist views, mobbing only forces students to be part of the faction’s thought system hence restricting them from exercising their opinions freely.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the arguments leveled for and against hate speech appeal to the audience through logos. On one hand, Rauch claims that supporting hate speech enables the dissemination of intellectual pluralism, which enables students to be rather expressive and critical of previously held beliefs. On the other hand, Stillwell surmises that limiting hate speech only protects targets from being hurt. However, it is apparent that the argument for hate speech is rather rational. This is because it calls for the freedom of expression, which is important in critical thinking and intellectual furtherance.

Works Cited

Lawrence III, Charles R. “The Debate Over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims.” Patterns for a Purpose: A Rhetorical Reader. Ed. Barbara F. Clouse. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2011. 627-630. Print.

Rauch, Jonathan. “In the Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected.” Harper’s Magazine. 1995. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/in_defense_of_prejudice/>.

Silverglate, Harvey A. and Greg Lukianoff. “Speech Codes: Alive and Well at Colleges.” Patterns for a Purpose: A Rhetorical Reader. Ed. Barbara F. Clouse. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2011. 632-637. Print.

Stillwell, Cinnamon. “Mob Rule on College Campuses.” Patterns for a Purpose: A Rhetorical Reader. Ed. Barbara F. Clouse. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2011. 622-625. Print.

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]