Christien Ayers

Affirmative Debate

Resolution: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any
constitutionally protected speech.

Definitions:

Public colleges and universities- any institution of higher education or any technical or
vocational school above the secondary school level, provided that such public school or public
college is operated by a State, subdivision of a State, or governmental agency within a State, or
operated wholly or predominantly from or through the use of governmental funds or property, or
funds or property derived from a governmental source.(42 USCS 2000c)
United States- The country in which we are currently residing in and its territories
ought- moral obligation (Merriam-Webster) AKA should
restrict- deprive (someone or something) of freedom of movement or action (Oxford Dictionary)
constitutionally protected speech- anything not concerning with obscenity, child pornography,
or fighting words and true threats which require the threat of an immediate breach of peace -
Defined by Cohen v. California, expletives/profanity unaccompanied by violence/pub.
disturbance dont fall under that, also since (by the same case) they are defined as being forms
First amendment (Cohen v. California, United States
of expression which is protected by the
Constitution, a Congressional Research Service report for Congress)

Value: Justice

Value Criterion:

Contention 1
The United States and its government is made up of the marketplace of ideas, not a place where
ideas are restricted based on subjective opinions.
The marketplace of ideas is the social theory that the truth of a certain idea will emerge through
the competition of ideas shared freely within the public atmosphere, as defined by Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes, Jr.s dissent in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) and John
Miltons Areopagitica. The marketplace of ideas thus allows for free speech, and especially in
public colleges, which are public places and owned by the government who, like Ive said, are
based on this marketplace theory. The government was created by the marketplace, proven by
how certain individuals belonging in politics shared their ideas on how to create the government,
and the best ideas created the best government for them. It shouldnt be acceptable for a
government to restrict something they embody, because then they are acting immoral by being
hypocritical.

Contention 2
Restrictions on free speech go against the point of education, which is, defined by John Dewey
and restated by Gene Carter, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of ASCD, to
transfer knowledge and prepare young people to participate in America's democratic society."
How does restricting individuals ideas prepare young people for society, much less democratic
society? It doesnt. In society, people are mean, offensive, cruel, and bigots. By restricting
individuals right to free speech in colleges, the colleges arent preparing students for the real
world because they are going to go into the real world thinking that people with offensive views
and debatable opinions will keep their mouths shut, and that isnt true. People will have
challenging ideals, and students need to encounter them so they can 1) better form their own
opinions by having access to a multitude of ideas because they cant even begin to form opinions
if they dont understand all sides and 2) better respond with opinions and ideas that they dont
agree with but come across in society. Even college educators feel that restrictions and restrictive
devices to free speech like safe spaces have negative effects on colleges and the students:
According to a survey by the National Coalition Against Censorship, out of 800+ college
educators 62 percent said they think trigger warnings have or will have a negative effect on
academic freedom (Chicago Tribune, 2015).

Contention 3
The restriction of constitutionally protected speech is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States states that, congress shall make
no law abridging the freedom of speech. This statement has been enforced upon the states
through the incorporation doctrine, as stated in the US Supreme court case Gitlow v. New York.
In essence this court case made it so that the First Amendment applies not only to the federal
government but the states as well. Now if we refer back to the definition of a public college or
university, we know that they are such if they are operated by a State, subdivision of a State, or
governmental agency within a State, or operated wholly or predominantly from or through the
use of governmental funds or property, or funds or property derived from a governmental
source.(42 USCS 2000c). Public colleges and universities are either operated by a state or are
reliant on the state government for their operation, and are therefore subject to all laws and
restrictions placed on state governments, including the First Amendment. To conclude, public
colleges and universities are subject to the first amendment, and therefore their restriction of
constitutionally protected free speech is not only immoral, because it is depriving citizens of
their natural rights, but is also in fact illegal.