so my tone is typically pretty casual and I typically sound more like a high school senior rather than a college student in my essays. I’m looking to argue the point that although freedom of speech is an important freedom that needs to be protected, universities must also prioritize the safety and inclusivity of their students by implementing measures to address and combat hate speech and its impact on marginalized groups. I came up with a rough outline that you can change as much as you’d like but maybe it will help. I’ll paste it below now.
I. Introduction – Definition of free speech – Importance of free speech in a democratic society
II. Limitations of Free Speech – Hate speech and its impact on marginalized groups –
III. Should hate speech be protected under the First Amendment?
IV. Balancing Free Speech and Safe/Inclusive Campus – Role of universities in promoting free speech –
V. Ensuring safety and inclusivity on campus
VI. Case Studies – Examples of hate speech on college campuses – Responses from universities and students
VII. Conclusion – The importance of protecting free speech while also creating a safe and inclusive environment – The ongoing debate and challenges in balancing these two values.
Argue for or against the philosophy expressed in “students must be able to explore views which others find offensive” and “Next steps on protests and free speech”
I will paste the entire first article at the end because you have to pay to access it online and paste the link to the second article after that.
My biggest fears with this paper is my teacher finding plagerized work within it, and the paper sounding so proffessional that he knows I didn’t write it. Whatever you need to do to make sure neither of these happen please do it.
I should also mention that my teacher has a service that detects when AI was used in a paper so under NO CIRCUMSTANCES use AI. If my paper tests positive for using AI or plagerizing I will be expelled.
If you don’t want to argue the viewpoint that I gave you and what to write the paper a different way, I have no issue with that as long as it’s within the guidelines of the assigment.
One last thing, please use as least three credible sources OTHER than the ones the teacher is asking us to argue the philosophy discussed within. I will link the two articles from the assignments below now
Students must be able to explore views which others find offensive
New free speech tsar warns universities
Students must be able to explore views which others find offensive, the new free speech tsar has told vice-chancellors.
Prof Arif Ahmed, who took on the role of Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the Office for Students (OfS) last month, issued the warning to university leaders at a conference in Manchester on Thursday.
The former Cambridge University philosophy professor said it was important for students to be able to “explore a range of views that perhaps others might find difficult to cope with or might find offensive, but to explore it for themselves so they can reach their own authentic view”.
He said: “University teaching especially really can’t function unless students are able to hear a very diverse range of views on all kinds of topics, perhaps especially in some subjects, but I think in every subject that’s important to some extent.”
As the first Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom, Prof Ahmed has the power to investigate free speech breaches Links to an external site.at universities and advise the sector regulator on imposing fines.
Motivated by the adherence
He was appointed to the role by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, after new free speech duties for universities were introduced in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.
Prof Ahmed, insisted that he will be “politically neutral”.
He said: “This post and this function of the OfS, it’s completely impartial, absolutely not political. None of the decisions we’ve taken are motivated by the adherence to one or other political viewpoint, they will be neutral.”
:“Freedom of speech doesn’t can’t work unless it is and is seen to be not politically partisan.”
The Government announced plans to appoint a free speech champion last year, following a string of rows over the so-called “cancellation” of academics and students over their views.
I was having to smuggle students
Prof Ahmed said the UK had seen a significant decline in academic freedom between 2012 and 2022, according to an international study by researchers at the University of Erlangen–Nuremberg in Germany.
In his former role as a Cambridge professor, he sparked a backlash from students and academics including his college’s master, Prof Pippa RogersonLinks to an external site., for inviting Helen Joyce, the gender-critical feministLinks to an external site., to speak about her book, Trans, which criticises aspects of trans activism.
Following the incident in October, he wrote that the effect of the intervention from university leaders was “predictably chilling”. He said: “Even before these letters came out, I was having to smuggle students into the eventLinks to an external site. because they were afraid to be seen there.”
He introduced free speech lessons for students at Gonville and Caius college last year.
https://law.stanford.edu/documents/dean-martinez-next-steps-on-protests-and-free-speech/#slsnav-i