top of page

Modern Case Studies

​

In recent years, universities have increasingly disciplined students for speech expressed outside the classroom, particularly on social media. Old posts, jokes, or offensive comments have resurfaced and led to serious consequences, including loss of scholarships, suspension, or expulsion. These cases often attract widespread attention and spark public debate about fairness and accountability.

​

A clear example is the case of Marcus Stokes, a high school football recruit whose scholarship opportunity was revoked after a video surfaced showing him using a racial slur. Although he later received an offer from an HBCU, the incident illustrates how speech, especially online, can dramatically alter educational opportunities. Public reaction to such cases is often divided, with some calling for strict consequences and others criticizing what they view as “cancel culture.”

​

These examples highlight the growing power of institutions and the public to punish speech, raising questions about proportionality, context, and the long-term impact on students’ lives.

Source referenced:
Layton (2023)

Campus Free-Speech Policies Today

​

In response to ongoing controversies, many states and institutions have introduced campus free-speech legislation and formal policies. These rules are often designed to affirm students’ expressive rights while outlining limits related to harassment or disruption. According to the AAUP (2018), such policies aim to clarify institutional responsibilities but often fall short in practice.

​

One major problem is inconsistent enforcement. Similar speech may be punished in one case and ignored in another, creating confusion and perceptions of bias. Additionally, broad or vague definitions of unacceptable speech can lead to overreach, allowing administrators excessive discretion in deciding what expression is permitted.

​

These challenges suggest that while policies are intended to protect both speech and safety, their implementation often undermines trust and fails to strike a fair balance.

​

Source referenced:
AAUP (2018)

Proposed Solutions

​

Rather than relying on expulsion or cancellation, universities should adopt restorative justice approaches that focus on education and dialogue. Restorative practices encourage students to understand the impact of their words, take responsibility, and engage with those affected in constructive ways.

​

Dialogue should be prioritized over punishment. Structured conversations, educational workshops, or mediated discussions allow students to learn without ending their academic careers. Context-based evaluations of speech are also essential; intent, age, time elapsed, and evidence of growth should all be considered before imposing consequences.

​

By emphasizing education over punishment, institutions can uphold inclusivity while still protecting the freedom of speech that makes learning possible.

​

Sources integrated:
Ma (1995); Bejan (2019)

​

​

​

Conclusion

​

Freedom of speech is fundamental to education because it allows students to explore ideas, challenge assumptions, and grow intellectually and morally. While colleges and universities must promote safety and respect, overly harsh restrictions on speech risk undermining these goals.

​

A balanced approach, one that values accountability, dialogue, and open debate, better serves students and society. How institutions handle student speech shapes not only individual futures but also the democratic principles of openness and tolerance. Preserving free speech in education is therefore not just an academic concern, but a vital issue for democracy itself.

​

​

Daniel Bengi

Fr. Federico

Recent Moral Issues

December 13, 2025

Emmanuel College

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

bottom of page