p.p1 UCLA’s Week on Freedom of Speech with

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.Apple-tab-span {white-space:pre}

In the early Fall of 2017, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) had recently inaugurated their Free Speech 101: UCLA’s Week on Freedom of Speech with events that scrutinize the rudiments of free speech and the significance of one’s freedom to express. One of their events called “CrossCheck Live: Campus Speech” introduced numerous perspectives by professors pertinent to campus speech, but more specifically hate speech at colleges. The only consensus they reached was that hate speech exists, but they failed to agree as to whether it should be allowed on campus and how it arises. They disputed whether hate speech is part of the freedom of speech we humans have, which begs the question as to whether we should actually abuse that freedom and say whatever we want, regardless of whether our speech harms someone else’s well-being. But people have unknowingly concocted a hate speech spectrum, in which one end harms and the other challenges when, I believe, in reality, hate speech would only be classified as harmful rather than merely opposing. Because of this broad definition, I do not believe students will acquiesce in any decision that will allow hate speech on campus, simply because of what the term anticipates and so a good way to tackle this is to redefine what students perceive to be hate speech. One’s expression of an unfavorable view is not hate speech; it does not vilify, but instead encourages potentially great discussions that can broaden one’s views. However, people’s bias becomes more evident when they begin to evaluate speakers based on thequality of the discourse that follows which, in effect, instigates the idea of hate speech. I agree with their attempt in healthily shaping UCLA into the microcosm of this world that it should be, and I think that hate speech which attacks individuals or groups is abhorrent, but it should not be prohibited because once adequately defined. To redefine or specify the translation of hate speech, I believe UCLA should tackle the core of all hate speech — institutional bias — by adding to the diverse voice of mentors and facilitators, such as faculty, that will reshape biases.
One would first need to apprehend the rudiments of ‘hate speech’. While it is deemed an expression that opposes a certain notion, ‘hate speech’ is somewhat of a double entendre, in the sense that, I believe, it is a direct form of speech that slanders an individual or a group. Upon analysis, ‘hate speech’ comprises of the words ‘hate’ and ‘speech’; while ‘speech’ is defined as a verbal form of expression, ‘hate’ is deemed an adjective that not only opposes but, due to the negative connotation attached to it, directly threatens and impinges the well-being of an individual or a group it is addressed to. This is corroborated by UCLA External Vice President Chloe Pan’s definition of hate speech which is “any expression of thoughts or beliefs that threaten the physical, mental or emotional well-being of an individual to the extent that they can’t operate in their day-to-day lives”. She claims that “the best example is the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement on our campus… so in the past, a lot of pro-Israel groups… have literally taken personal contact information and the photos of UCLA students and put them on websites and labeled them as terrorists, like on terrorist watch list… and said that these are terrorists and they deserve to be deported”. This example personifies the components of hate speech because it poses a threat to the well-being students when branded as terrorists and it is further exacerbated when their contact and personal information have been disclosed on theterrorist watch list. This is unequivocally atrocious, simply because it classifies as an attack, be it verbal or online, on the well-beings of students on college campuses such as that of UCLA.
However, I concede that albeit possessing some unfavorable and negative qualities, hate speech should be allowed on campus. Students, however and especially under the UC umbrella in general, seem to be very sensitive to this term that they’ve unknowingly created a large scope for; it has shifted into becoming an excessively broad form of speech. There has to be a line that segregates the two extremes of the hate speech spectrum: violent and opposing speech (as I said, it is somewhat of a double entendre). For instance, if I wake up tomorrow and identify as a moose, which makes that my identity, and someone tells me that that idea is ridiculous, would that classify as hate speech because s/he attacked my identity? The line between violent and opposing becomes blurred and vague. This is where the stark difference between the example Pan gave and my example becomes more evident. Identifying this spectrum is essential because it elucidates the speech that students should and most probably are actually against. A violent speech is a form of hate speech that deliberately attacks an individual or a group, whereas an opposing speech is a form of expression that simply opposes a belief. Therefore, I think that hate speech is only abhorrent if it, by any means possible, instigates violence, incites riots, threatens others, etc. The term ‘hate speech’ is in actuality contradistinctive to people’s apprehension of it. If it can be called out as a threat directed to a person’s life, then it should be called ‘violent speech’; it also contravenes the law against, in some cases, murder. It is a valid form of hate speech but specifying it as ‘violent speech’ illuminates one end of the hate speech spectrum. This is the type of hate speech that I do not think should be allowed on UCLA campus because the campus would then be threatened with anarchy, and situations become aggravated should it be directed to underrepresented groups on campus. Brown and Mangan have reflected the oversensitivity towards ‘hate speech’ on campuses such as UCLA when they demonstrated that “the broader trend those episodes seem to point to can appear problematic: college campuses are filled with overly sensitive students who find course assignments and dissenting viewpoints traumatizing”. One instance many critics seized upon was when a series of chalked messages that supported Republican presidential candidate (at the time) Donald J. Trump who visited Emory University and other colleges had caused a student there to feel unsafe. Suggestions were given to Emory officials to investigate and punish those responsible because Mr. Trump’s name had become associated with racism. UCLA students have become extremely sensitive to issues such as this that essentially thrive on a college campus. Their sensitivity is only accompanied by the intent of censoring views and beliefs that they did not like, which according to Alexander (Sasha) Volokh, an associate professor of law at Emory, is a restriction on speech. Just as Brown and Mangan stated, it has become a trend for college students to somehow be prolifically sensitive to all forms of hate speech, when violent speech is the speech that threatens and causes harm.
This oversensitivity has completely obscured the benefits of having opposing views (that do not attack an individual or a group) when hate speech becomes prohibited altogether. As argued by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh in Crosscheck Live: Campus Speech, it can hone individuals’ beliefs, but it was rebutted with the fact that certain opposing views will question the already-accepted societal norms. That point was then countered when someone pointed out that we can exploit our rights as humans to challenge that counterclaim. This then vivifies a heated discussion, where parties holding antithetical beliefs engage in a civil, non-violent, and better yet professional setting. People are then able to confabulate issues that are of actual significance, corroborating and challenging each others’ views rather than ferociously tearing each other apart via ad hominem attacks. The issue with the oversensitivity within a plethora of UCLA students is that labeling and dubbing anything that comes remotely close to offensive encumbers their and our education; we will never, as a university, be able to progress. Such unnecessary repugnance towards ‘offensive’ ideologies that occur in universities all over the nation, including UCLA, quenches debates and discussions, disallowing the institution from succeeding in its objective, i.e. to foster logical people who can formulate logical reasonings and solutions to many of the issues that the world revolves around.
Since hate speech has emerged as an issue ubiquitous among UCLA students, we have to ask ourselves as to why hate speech arises and where it stems from. Pan asserts that “it stems from a lot of ignorance and from a lot of -isms whether it’s like racism, or whatever-isms”, which in many ways relates to diversity on UCLA campus. It is because of the already preconceived bias that elicits hatred and thus hate speech. In fact, a political sociology theory that Pan states, known as “motivated reasoning” in which confirmation bias compels one to seek out information that substantiates your preexisting beliefs and what political sociologists investigate, is what happens when one is presented with information that challenges one’s beliefs. She claims that copious political science research has proven that when someone who is staunchly partisan hears contrasting views, it causes s/he to “believe in what you already believed in even more, even if your view is false”. She consolidates this claim with results from JMC Analytics’ senate poll on Alabama voters that showed an increased likelihood for voters to vote for Doug Jones despite the views against him. Therefore, the -isms such as those existent in UCLA can potentially exacerbate when opposing views are introduced. It is not uncommon for one to acknowledge the fact that institutional bias (which encapsulates the whatever-isms Pan mentioned) is evident and inherent on every campus, whether explicit or implicit.
And so, to cultivate a less encroaching environment, or optimistically speaking, a more commodious and academic environment, the university would need to minimize, if not extirpate, institutional bias on campus that gives rise to and is given rise to by violent speech. It then gives rise to the question on why institutional bias exists. Chong’s piece on “Free Speech and Multiculturalism In and Out of the Academy” claimed that there has been a decrease in the level of tolerance towards hate speech that is especially evident amongst college students, whereas the levels of tolerance for nonconformist ideas remained generally high. This is due to the receptivity of not only UCLA students but college students in general to normative pressure during their adolescence to adulthood transition. For instance, liberal and conservative UCLA students alike are aware that liberal perspectives constitute the majority opinion at UCLA and that conformity to this angle expedites social acceptance within the community. This lack of diversity (in this scenario, political views) is caused by students conforming to normative pressure. Then what forms this norm that students have to follow? What have they been exposed to?
The one constant for college students is, I believe, their education — what they have been taught, who they have been taught by, and why they were taught as such which, to put it simply, is what they’re exposed to. And the objective of a university, according to Dr. Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, is “to expose to people to ideas. Universities are not supposed to be about indoctrination of a singular point of view, and as far as teaching students how to engage in critical analysis, that cannot take place in an environment where we try to insulate them from anything that might make them feel uncomfortable” (Pennamon). She made national headlines over a controversial column she composed, but nevertheless, students were then exposed to her ideologies although they may not be favorable or similar. In fact, several students have said that she was the first conservative professor they have had. This, in actuality, exhibits that by introducing or injecting diversity (even in terms of faculty) into this pool of normality can expose college students to different ideologies. It is allowing students to shape their own opinions through a variety of ideologies and beliefs, no matter how multifaceted they may be and henceforth norms, rather than others brainwashing them with a specific set of their own beliefs. 
In Pennamon’s article, she also calls attention to speakers banned from speaking on campus by students due to their political beliefs. The isolation of even professors such as Dr. Shelby Steele when he became a conservative reflects their ignorance. He said that “attitudes changed dramatically” (Pennamon). However, instead of banning and protesting speakers, Steele encourages the students to invite speakers who hold divergent — even controversial — views and to engage with them “in an honest and respectful way,” standing up to the “intellectual challenge” that even the most chauvinistic figures bring. If UCLA students are able to do this, they can “understand their own point of view” (Pennamon). A back-and-forth conversation adds to a person’s knowledge on the topic; it shows an individual more than one side of a topic and eliminates any one-sidedness. It is by being exposed to different ideas or injecting diversity into this ideological bubble that can rid universities of institutional biases which will allow an injection of ideological diversity (by allowing opposing speeches on college campuses). Therefore, allowing an injection of diversity into the ideological bubble that college students are exposed to can reshape and, in fact, give students the liberty to formulate their own opinions that do not necessarily conform to the societal norm. In fact, allowing this injection can minimize the institutional bias on college campuses because students will be exposed to different perspectives, in which their own beliefs and education on certain topics will no longer be skewed. In effect, such minimization can reduce opinions that formulate hate speech and those that are against opposing speech. In conclusion, the way to tackle hate speech is by making a distinction between the ends of the hate speech spectrum and by reducing institutional bias that gives rise to radical and harmful hate speech.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.Apple-tab-span {white-space:pre}

In the early Fall of 2017, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) had recently inaugurated their Free Speech 101: UCLA’s Week on Freedom of Speech with events that scrutinize the rudiments of free speech and the significance of one’s freedom to express. One of their events called “CrossCheck Live: Campus Speech” introduced numerous perspectives by professors pertinent to campus speech, but more specifically hate speech at colleges. The only consensus they reached was that hate speech exists, but they failed to agree as to whether it should be allowed on campus and how it arises. They disputed whether hate speech is part of the freedom of speech we humans have, which begs the question as to whether we should actually abuse that freedom and say whatever we want, regardless of whether our speech harms someone else’s well-being. But people have unknowingly concocted a hate speech spectrum, in which one end harms and the other challenges when, I believe, in reality, hate speech would only be classified as harmful rather than merely opposing. Because of this broad definition, I do not believe students will acquiesce in any decision that will allow hate speech on campus, simply because of what the term anticipates and so a good way to tackle this is to redefine what students perceive to be hate speech. One’s expression of an unfavorable view is not hate speech; it does not vilify, but instead encourages potentially great discussions that can broaden one’s views. However, people’s bias becomes more evident when they begin to evaluate speakers based on thequality of the discourse that follows which, in effect, instigates the idea of hate speech. I agree with their attempt in healthily shaping UCLA into the microcosm of this world that it should be, and I think that hate speech which attacks individuals or groups is abhorrent, but it should not be prohibited because once adequately defined. To redefine or specify the translation of hate speech, I believe UCLA should tackle the core of all hate speech — institutional bias — by adding to the diverse voice of mentors and facilitators, such as faculty, that will reshape biases.
One would first need to apprehend the rudiments of ‘hate speech’. While it is deemed an expression that opposes a certain notion, ‘hate speech’ is somewhat of a double entendre, in the sense that, I believe, it is a direct form of speech that slanders an individual or a group. Upon analysis, ‘hate speech’ comprises of the words ‘hate’ and ‘speech’; while ‘speech’ is defined as a verbal form of expression, ‘hate’ is deemed an adjective that not only opposes but, due to the negative connotation attached to it, directly threatens and impinges the well-being of an individual or a group it is addressed to. This is corroborated by UCLA External Vice President Chloe Pan’s definition of hate speech which is “any expression of thoughts or beliefs that threaten the physical, mental or emotional well-being of an individual to the extent that they can’t operate in their day-to-day lives”. She claims that “the best example is the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement on our campus… so in the past, a lot of pro-Israel groups… have literally taken personal contact information and the photos of UCLA students and put them on websites and labeled them as terrorists, like on terrorist watch list… and said that these are terrorists and they deserve to be deported”. This example personifies the components of hate speech because it poses a threat to the well-being students when branded as terrorists and it is further exacerbated when their contact and personal information have been disclosed on theterrorist watch list. This is unequivocally atrocious, simply because it classifies as an attack, be it verbal or online, on the well-beings of students on college campuses such as that of UCLA.
However, I concede that albeit possessing some unfavorable and negative qualities, hate speech should be allowed on campus. Students, however and especially under the UC umbrella in general, seem to be very sensitive to this term that they’ve unknowingly created a large scope for; it has shifted into becoming an excessively broad form of speech. There has to be a line that segregates the two extremes of the hate speech spectrum: violent and opposing speech (as I said, it is somewhat of a double entendre). For instance, if I wake up tomorrow and identify as a moose, which makes that my identity, and someone tells me that that idea is ridiculous, would that classify as hate speech because s/he attacked my identity? The line between violent and opposing becomes blurred and vague. This is where the stark difference between the example Pan gave and my example becomes more evident. Identifying this spectrum is essential because it elucidates the speech that students should and most probably are actually against. A violent speech is a form of hate speech that deliberately attacks an individual or a group, whereas an opposing speech is a form of expression that simply opposes a belief. Therefore, I think that hate speech is only abhorrent if it, by any means possible, instigates violence, incites riots, threatens others, etc. The term ‘hate speech’ is in actuality contradistinctive to people’s apprehension of it. If it can be called out as a threat directed to a person’s life, then it should be called ‘violent speech’; it also contravenes the law against, in some cases, murder. It is a valid form of hate speech but specifying it as ‘violent speech’ illuminates one end of the hate speech spectrum. This is the type of hate speech that I do not think should be allowed on UCLA campus because the campus would then be threatened with anarchy, and situations become aggravated should it be directed to underrepresented groups on campus. Brown and Mangan have reflected the oversensitivity towards ‘hate speech’ on campuses such as UCLA when they demonstrated that “the broader trend those episodes seem to point to can appear problematic: college campuses are filled with overly sensitive students who find course assignments and dissenting viewpoints traumatizing”. One instance many critics seized upon was when a series of chalked messages that supported Republican presidential candidate (at the time) Donald J. Trump who visited Emory University and other colleges had caused a student there to feel unsafe. Suggestions were given to Emory officials to investigate and punish those responsible because Mr. Trump’s name had become associated with racism. UCLA students have become extremely sensitive to issues such as this that essentially thrive on a college campus. Their sensitivity is only accompanied by the intent of censoring views and beliefs that they did not like, which according to Alexander (Sasha) Volokh, an associate professor of law at Emory, is a restriction on speech. Just as Brown and Mangan stated, it has become a trend for college students to somehow be prolifically sensitive to all forms of hate speech, when violent speech is the speech that threatens and causes harm.
This oversensitivity has completely obscured the benefits of having opposing views (that do not attack an individual or a group) when hate speech becomes prohibited altogether. As argued by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh in Crosscheck Live: Campus Speech, it can hone individuals’ beliefs, but it was rebutted with the fact that certain opposing views will question the already-accepted societal norms. That point was then countered when someone pointed out that we can exploit our rights as humans to challenge that counterclaim. This then vivifies a heated discussion, where parties holding antithetical beliefs engage in a civil, non-violent, and better yet professional setting. People are then able to confabulate issues that are of actual significance, corroborating and challenging each others’ views rather than ferociously tearing each other apart via ad hominem attacks. The issue with the oversensitivity within a plethora of UCLA students is that labeling and dubbing anything that comes remotely close to offensive encumbers their and our education; we will never, as a university, be able to progress. Such unnecessary repugnance towards ‘offensive’ ideologies that occur in universities all over the nation, including UCLA, quenches debates and discussions, disallowing the institution from succeeding in its objective, i.e. to foster logical people who can formulate logical reasonings and solutions to many of the issues that the world revolves around.
Since hate speech has emerged as an issue ubiquitous among UCLA students, we have to ask ourselves as to why hate speech arises and where it stems from. Pan asserts that “it stems from a lot of ignorance and from a lot of -isms whether it’s like racism, or whatever-isms”, which in many ways relates to diversity on UCLA campus. It is because of the already preconceived bias that elicits hatred and thus hate speech. In fact, a political sociology theory that Pan states, known as “motivated reasoning” in which confirmation bias compels one to seek out information that substantiates your preexisting beliefs and what political sociologists investigate, is what happens when one is presented with information that challenges one’s beliefs. She claims that copious political science research has proven that when someone who is staunchly partisan hears contrasting views, it causes s/he to “believe in what you already believed in even more, even if your view is false”. She consolidates this claim with results from JMC Analytics’ senate poll on Alabama voters that showed an increased likelihood for voters to vote for Doug Jones despite the views against him. Therefore, the -isms such as those existent in UCLA can potentially exacerbate when opposing views are introduced. It is not uncommon for one to acknowledge the fact that institutional bias (which encapsulates the whatever-isms Pan mentioned) is evident and inherent on every campus, whether explicit or implicit.
And so, to cultivate a less encroaching environment, or optimistically speaking, a more commodious and academic environment, the university would need to minimize, if not extirpate, institutional bias on campus that gives rise to and is given rise to by violent speech. It then gives rise to the question on why institutional bias exists. Chong’s piece on “Free Speech and Multiculturalism In and Out of the Academy” claimed that there has been a decrease in the level of tolerance towards hate speech that is especially evident amongst college students, whereas the levels of tolerance for nonconformist ideas remained generally high. This is due to the receptivity of not only UCLA students but college students in general to normative pressure during their adolescence to adulthood transition. For instance, liberal and conservative UCLA students alike are aware that liberal perspectives constitute the majority opinion at UCLA and that conformity to this angle expedites social acceptance within the community. This lack of diversity (in this scenario, political views) is caused by students conforming to normative pressure. Then what forms this norm that students have to follow? What have they been exposed to?
The one constant for college students is, I believe, their education — what they have been taught, who they have been taught by, and why they were taught as such which, to put it simply, is what they’re exposed to. And the objective of a university, according to Dr. Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, is “to expose to people to ideas. Universities are not supposed to be about indoctrination of a singular point of view, and as far as teaching students how to engage in critical analysis, that cannot take place in an environment where we try to insulate them from anything that might make them feel uncomfortable” (Pennamon). She made national headlines over a controversial column she composed, but nevertheless, students were then exposed to her ideologies although they may not be favorable or similar. In fact, several students have said that she was the first conservative professor they have had. This, in actuality, exhibits that by introducing or injecting diversity (even in terms of faculty) into this pool of normality can expose college students to different ideologies. It is allowing students to shape their own opinions through a variety of ideologies and beliefs, no matter how multifaceted they may be and henceforth norms, rather than others brainwashing them with a specific set of their own beliefs. 
In Pennamon’s article, she also calls attention to speakers banned from speaking on campus by students due to their political beliefs. The isolation of even professors such as Dr. Shelby Steele when he became a conservative reflects their ignorance. He said that “attitudes changed dramatically” (Pennamon). However, instead of banning and protesting speakers, Steele encourages the students to invite speakers who hold divergent — even controversial — views and to engage with them “in an honest and respectful way,” standing up to the “intellectual challenge” that even the most chauvinistic figures bring. If UCLA students are able to do this, they can “understand their own point of view” (Pennamon). A back-and-forth conversation adds to a person’s knowledge on the topic; it shows an individual more than one side of a topic and eliminates any one-sidedness. It is by being exposed to different ideas or injecting diversity into this ideological bubble that can rid universities of institutional biases which will allow an injection of ideological diversity (by allowing opposing speeches on college campuses). Therefore, allowing an injection of diversity into the ideological bubble that college students are exposed to can reshape and, in fact, give students the liberty to formulate their own opinions that do not necessarily conform to the societal norm. In fact, allowing this injection can minimize the institutional bias on college campuses because students will be exposed to different perspectives, in which their own beliefs and education on certain topics will no longer be skewed. In effect, such minimization can reduce opinions that formulate hate speech and those that are against opposing speech. In conclusion, the way to tackle hate speech is by making a distinction between the ends of the hate speech spectrum and by reducing institutional bias that gives rise to radical and harmful hate speech.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now
x

Hi!
I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out