Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought

not to restrict any constitutionally protected speech

I stand in Negation at the topic at hand

Contentions:
1. By restricting protected speech, it can preserve the university or
colleges image.
2. Restrictions on protected speech will continue to prepare
students for the real world.
3. Restrictions on protected speech will continue to prepare
students for the real world.

Definition:

First Amendment: The First Amendment guarantees freedoms

concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It
forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also
restricting an individuals religious practices. It guarantees freedom of
expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the
rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of
citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government//
From: Cornell University of Law

My first contention is that by restricting protected speech, it

can preserve the university or colleges image.
My reference to the image of the school is the way that the campus
and facility is perceived by the public. For example Harvards image is
that it is a prestigious law school with an old but beautiful campus
filled with knowledge and highly successful academic students.

By restricting what is allowed on the campus a school can attain their

image which will keep their benefactors interested. US News reported a
study done by the Council for Aid to Education that found that:
Donations from alumni increased by more than 10 percent in 2015
compared with the previous year, reaching a total of $10.85 billion in
alumni contributions among U.S. colleges and universities.
The funding of some school activities and programs rely on the
generosity of alumni. If the public no longer sees that school as what
they believe they graduated from, it can affect their donations.

Before the Sex Scandal at Penn State, Penn State raked in $72.7
million in revenue from football last season, ranking fifth out of all
college programs in the country, according to CNNMoney In addition,
the schools Athletic Department, took home another $24.1 million in
revenue not designated to a specific team or sport a sum that came
mostly from merchandise sales, sponsorships and alumni.
Since the scandal Penn States college program has dropped to 10 th,
along with the donation which as dropped millions.

With the withdrawal of alumni and benefactors money after the

scandal, Penn State became more financially unstable and its image
was ruined for quite some time. When anyone talked about Penn State
they thought of the child abuse scandals and fired coaches.

My second contention is that restrictions on protected speech

will continue to prepare students for the real world.
The things that they say may be constitutionally accepted although it
doesnt mean that they are socially accepted.

A person can go out and voice their beliefs on any controversial issue
these days such as gay marriage, the current election or religion. They
are protected by the first amendment to have the right to do so.

Although, what the amendment doesnt protect is social consequences

that could follow afterwards. By allowing colleges to restrict students
on their choice of acceptable actions, they are teaching them when it is
appropriate to keep their mouths shut.

This directly correlates with the social contract theory. The idea behind
it is that is the students give a little freedom of speech up, they will
gain a more social acceptance later in life.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that Thomas Hobbs, a

well-known English Philosopher during the English War, said:
Prior to the establishment of the basic social contract, according
to which men agree to live together and the contract to embody a
Sovereign with absolute authority, nothing is immoral or unjust -
anything goes. The Social Contract is the most fundamental source of
all that is good and that which we depend upon to live well

What Hobbs is saying that it is doable to live with little guidelines but
since everything goes the lines between moral and unjust become
blurred and the aftermath uncontrollable.

By implementing the Social Contract Theory, it will guide the students

on a path to become good citizens. Also forming the next generation of
society to be more respectable.

My third contention is that if the school doesnt restrict some

speech of the students, the professors could be perceived as
they are not doing their jobs.

About.com claims that:

Being a teacher is much more than just executing lesson plans, in
today's world a teacher's role is a multifaceted profession; they carry
the role of a surrogate parent, class disciplinarian, mentor, counselor,
book keeper, role model, planner and many more.

Notice how they include surrogate parent, disciplinary, mentor and role
model.

A teacher in its very nature is taught to form the minds of those they
are teaching by the knowledge they expel on them.

If students begin to act out in inappropriate rants, teachers can be

blamed. It is their jobs to inform their students of how to present
themselves in society. This is taught from kindergarten all the way up
to the college levels.

For the reasons of the image of the university or college, preparation

of the students and the perception of the teaching staff I urge you to
vote in negation.