Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom on Campus: Why It Matters and How It’s Being Threatened

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date of submission
Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom on Campus
In the address titled Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom on Campus: Why It Matters, and How It’s Being Threatened, professor Eugene Volokh notes that Freedom of speech and academic freedom is a right that every student needs to enjoy regardless of their opinion religion or background (Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom on Campus: Why It Matters And How It’s Being Threatened). He suggests that it is only right that all students are allowed to discuss and read about all sorts of issues regardless of whether they agree with them or otherwise. Volokh’s presentation offers several examples that reflect the notion that the freedom of learning and expression has being undermined in some colleges in the United States. In each of the examples, he gives the facts of the case accompanied by his understanding and stance on the same. His assessment of the problems he presents suggests that he upholds the importance of academic freedom in the realization of all-around scholars who can be relied upon to make independent decisions in matters that appear to be controversial. Restriction of the content that students are supposed to read and reference and a step in the wrong direction as far as far as academic freedom is concerned (Barabási, 567). Volokh also postulates that the restrictions only serve to harm the students because they deny them the opportunity to discuss and learn some subjects because the content offends some of the students.

Throughout to the end, Professor Volokh maintains that indeed academic freedom is under severe threat and the responsible administrations should desist from infringing on the rights of the students with regards to academic freedom and freedom of speech.
To begin with, Volokh addresses the Virginia v black example that deals with cross burning. Despite that, it was the single most comprehensive case the administration forbade the students from reading it. The reason for the same was that they felt that the text would be offensive to the black students. The directive was later revoked, but it was a sign that the faculty was trying to infringe on academic freedom. Volokh suggests that it was wrong for the department to deny them a chance to read that case because it is well within the rights of the students to agree or disagree with the text. According to Volokh, the faculty should encourage students to read all cases and judge the texts for themselves. The constitutional scholar further discusses the case of a controversial event flier at the University of Minnesota. The advertisement depicted Mohamed, the religious symbol dear to all Muslims and several complaints were filed regarding the same. The administration said that the image could not be used or displayed in the university because a section of the student community felt it was blasphemous. Volokh argues that the flier should have been supported by the administration because the students need the freedom to discuss all issues, agreeable or not (Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom on Campus: Why It Matters And How It’s Being Threatened). He suggests that the image is historical significance and all the students should be allowed to use it in any publications and posters they so wish. I concur with Volokh in that restrictions on what students can talk about should be eliminated to uphold freedom in the learning institutions (Miller, Ryan A., et al., 7).
Volokh’s address about the freedom of speech is well researched and has some examples that are thought-provoking and could form the basis of interesting discussions. He brings forward the idea that the administrations have eroded the freedom to express oneself in the campuses. Now more than ever the faculties are trying to control the subject content that the students are exposed to (Barabási, 580). This is wrong because it suggests to the learners that they should not avoid other topics in their learning. Additionally, the taboo subjects form an encompassment of a huge loophole that would have adverse effects on the neutrality of the young lawyers. This argument is sound because the to-be criminology practitioners shall most likely carry with them the notion of intolerance into their careers. The result shall be unending cycles that will bring about a distorted understanding of the sensitive issues that we face in society on a day to day basis.
Volokh’s sentiments are however not entirely exhaustive since they are generalized. He suggests that the campuses should abolish or get rid of all the restrictions affecting subject content and the expressions used by students. He, however, does not consider the instances in which a student or group of students go to extremes and single out an individual and intimidate them.In that case, the administration needs to step in and restrict the expression. I also disagree with Volokh on the allowing students to use pictures or other religious connotations in free publications such as fliers and posters (Post, 17). His sentiments on the need to allow all students to access and read all and sundry with regards to their coursework should, however, be upheld. These cases that seem to be upsetting to a portion of the student community hold the key to better understanding and analysis of the issues that the society should have addressed a long time ago. Volokh’s presentation is indeed an eye-opener on the need for revisiting the terms that regulate freedom of speech and academic freedom on campuses throughout the US.
Works CitedFreedom Of Speech And Academic Freedom On Campus: Why It Matters And How It’s Being Threatened.” Youtube, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ebefJf16jc.Post, Robert. “The Classic First Amendment Tradition Under Stress: Freedom of Speech and the University.” (2017).
Miller, Ryan A., et al. “Free speech tensions: Responding to bias on college and university campuses.” Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice (2017): 1-13.
Barabási, Albert-László. “Academia under fire in Hungary.” (2017): 563-563.