Championing Student Expression
Freedom of Speech on College Campuses
Freedom of speech has long been considered a cornerstone of education, especially in colleges and universities where open discussion is essential for learning and personal growth. Institutions of higher education are meant to be spaces where students can question ideas, challenge beliefs, and engage in meaningful debate. However, in recent years, the way schools handle student speech has become increasingly controversial. Colleges now regulate not only what students say in classrooms, but also what they post online, even when those statements were made years earlier.
​
This issue matters deeply in contemporary society because student speech can carry lasting consequences. Social media has made personal expression permanent and public, allowing past statements to resurface and affect scholarships, enrollment, and future opportunities. While universities aim to create safe and inclusive environments, their responses to controversial speech often raise concerns about censorship and overreach. The challenge lies in determining how much control institutions should have over student expression without undermining the very purpose of education.
This project argues that although colleges and universities have a responsibility to promote respect and safety, restrictions on student speech often go too far and limit intellectual development. Harsh punishments, particularly for past or immature speech, can discourage open dialogue and critical thinking. Instead of relying on cancellation or expulsion, institutions should prioritize education, discussion, and accountability that allow students to learn from mistakes while preserving the freedom of speech that is essential to higher education.
​
Sources referenced:
Hankins, F. H. (1938). Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Teaching.
Bejan, T. M. (2019). Two Concepts of Freedom (of Speech).
Historical Background
The idea of free speech in education is closely tied to the concept of academic freedom. In the early twentieth century, scholars argued that universities should be independent spaces where ideas could be explored without fear of punishment or censorship. According to F. H. Hankins, academic freedom was seen as essential not only for professors but also for students, because learning depends on the ability to question established beliefs and express unpopular opinions. Universities were viewed as places where truth could be pursued through open inquiry rather than enforced conformity.
​
Historically, colleges and universities functioned as spaces for debate and dissent. Students and faculty were encouraged to engage with controversial ideas, even when those ideas challenged political, social, or moral norms. This openness was considered necessary for intellectual progress and a democratic society. Hankins emphasized that restricting speech in educational settings weakened the purpose of higher education by limiting honest discussion and critical thinking. The classroom was meant to be a protected environment where ideas could be tested and debated without external pressure.
​
Over time, however, institutional authority over speech began to expand. Universities increasingly adopted rules and policies to manage conduct and expression, often in response to social change, public pressure, or political concerns. While some regulation was intended to maintain order and respect, it also shifted power away from open debate and toward administrative control. This evolution marked a turning point in how academic freedom was understood, transforming universities from primarily forums of free inquiry into institutions that actively shape and limit acceptable speech.
​
Sources Referenced:
​
​Hankins, F. H. (1938). Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Teaching.
​
​
​
​
​
Free Speech vs. Restriction: The Philosophical Debate
Debates about free speech on college campuses often center on a tension between protecting individuals from harm and preserving the open exchange of ideas. Philosophers and legal scholars disagree on where the proper limits of speech should lie, especially in educational institutions that serve diverse populations.
Arguments for Restricting Speech
​
One argument for restricting speech in educational settings focuses on safety and harm prevention. Supporters of speech regulations argue that certain forms of expression as hate speech or harassment, cause real psychological and emotional harm to students. Universities, they argue, have a responsibility to intervene when speech threatens the well-being of their community.
Another major justification for restriction is inclusivity and the protection of marginalized groups. Scholars such as Ma (1995) argue that unrestricted speech can reinforce existing inequalities by allowing dominant voices to silence or intimidate vulnerable populations. From this perspective, regulating speech is not censorship, but rather a means to ensure equal participation and access to education.
Ultimately, institutions are perceived as having a responsibility to uphold their values and foster productive learning environments. Colleges are not neutral public spaces; they are structured communities with missions centered on education. As a result, administrators often claim the authority to limit speech they believe undermines those goals.
Arguments for Protecting Speech
In contrast, many philosophers argue that protecting free speech is essential for intellectual development. Bejan (2019) emphasizes that disagreement and exposure to opposing viewpoints are necessary for students to refine their beliefs and think critically. Without the freedom to express controversial ideas, education risks becoming shallow or dogmatic.
Another key argument is moral growth through mistakes. College is often a time when individuals are still forming their identities and values. Punishing students severely for immature or past speech can prevent reflection and learning. Instead, allowing space for error supports personal responsibility and ethical development.
Finally, disagreement itself plays a crucial role in education. Open debate teaches students how to argue respectfully, listen to others, and engage with complexity. Suppressing speech may reduce conflict, but it also weakens the democratic skills that higher education is meant to cultivate.
Sources referenced:
Bejan (2019); Ma (1995)