Lauren Vialva

Samantha Kirby

ENGL 101

12 March 2018

Are You a Hater or an Offender?

The term ‘offensive’ is defined as “causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry”

or “actively aggressive; attacking.” Both definitions have great significance in trying to shape

what exactly is considered offensive in order to know and understand how offensive speech

should be dealt with on campus. This has become so complex that it probably is impossible to

decipher and clearly point out everything and anything that could be considered hurtful or

aggressive to another individual. Some people feel that all sensitivities and ‘offensive’

environments should be censored or at least handled in such a way that nobody feels

uncomfortable or upset. Others disagree and find that these ‘offensive’ surroundings are

necessary to development and growth. Also, what is considered derogatory to someone has

become so complex that it probably is impossible to decipher and clearly point out everything

and anything that could be considered hurtful or aggressive to another individual. With that

being said, should a line be drawn for what types of speech are allowed on campus and should

college campuses, perhaps by state deliberate and decide on those lines?

First of all, the purpose of a university is to learn…LEARN! Learning happens when

people experience different aspects and walks of life even if it makes them uncomfortable or

they do find it offensive. So yes, students or people should be put in situations that cause them

discomfort. They are adults entering the real world and it is vital that they learn as much as they

possibly can and not just academically but intellectually as well, which is arguably more
important. Offensive speech, literature, visual images, or other forms of expression should be

allowed on campus without restriction, in fact, it is necessary. In Sanneh’s, “The Hell You Say”

he mentions a perfect example of students sheltering themselves from ‘uncomfortable’ point of

views; in the spring of 2013 “…Voice for Life, a pro-life group that was initially denied

recognition by the student government of Johns Hopkins University, partly out of concern that its

“sidewalk counselling” sessions could be considered harassment of women.” (Sanneh) All the

reasons on why this group could not be recognized was not mentioned so there might be a really

good explanation but the fact that their “sidewalk counselling” was even a part of that list is

problematic and it is also concerning that is was considered “harassment.” This group is simply

speaking their views on a topic that, sure, may be controversial but that does not mean they

should not have a right to speak about it. The supreme court later even ruled in favor of Voice for

Life on April 3, 2013 and the Vice Provost for Institutional Equity released a letter with this

statement, “A student group’s distribution of literature and advocacy of its viewpoint, in the

manner set out in your email, would not constitute harassment within the meaning of these

policies. In fact, such conduct is fully in accord with the university’s robust commitment to the

values of free expression and open debate that is articulated in these policies.” The school

ironically agreed with the Vice Provost after this letter came through. Unfortunately, it is so

common nowadays to hear about these events on college campuses where these seemingly

innocent actions are being read as triggering and not okay. This line from Campus Speech sums

it up pretty well, “A society in which people can avoid physical pain comparatively easily will

produce people who are less prepared to deal with it.” It is okay to not agree with someone, but it

is not okay for that person to have to shut down in order for someone else to be comfortable and

fine. The world does not work like that. Situations will always exist that make people uneasy and
the only way to know how to handle it is to experience it, who knows they might even agree with

something they did not think they would. Besides, acceptance was never necessary, but tolerance

and discussion are. Then, what types of speech should be allowed on campus?

Now some people might believe that safe spaces and trigger warnings are absolutely

necessary. They argue that people do not know other’s backgrounds or upbringing so what may

not bother someone could bother someone else or it may cause tension between two extreme

ideologies. Aaron R. Hanlon says in “The Trigger Warning Myth” that the material on his list

could be, “...censored by “social justice warriors” from the left, since many of them could be

triggering for students suffering from post-traumatic stress. In another context, however, they

could be censored from the right, by people who tell the sexual assault survivor balking at a

literary rape scene to “grow up,” then turn around and oppose the teaching of sexually explicit

material because it’s “trash.” Also, students are spending thousands of dollars to come to

universities across the nation so why should they be put in situations that make them

uncomfortable or upset?

Again, as stated above it is impossible to meet the needs of every student and make sure

that all speech said on campus is “safe” and “okay.” Also, it is dangerous to only expose students

to comfy environments because they need to learn. However, there is something very important

that needs to be addressed, which is the variation between hate speech and offensive speech.

Hate is when one person is dehumanizing or making another human being seem unequal, from

the perspective of the rights of the other person. Hate speech in no form whatsoever should be

allowed on college campuses because it lays very twisted, dangerous roots and is not

constructive in any way. This is where the line should be drawn because at the end of the day

anything can be considered offensive or triggering, it is way too broad, but hate is a branch that
should not be tolerated and fortunately has a pretty common and agreeable definition. Hate has

caused way too many drastic problems like Hitler with the Jews and the colonizers in Africa

during the slave trade. Both ended with millions of innocent deaths and accelerated the deep-

rooted racism and hatred that we even see today in so many people. These notorious, historical

events centered on making other humans seem less human, like they did not deserve the same

rights as others. If anyone on campus was making another person or group, feel this way then it

should definitely not be tolerated. Their speech does not spark discussion, it induces a blinding

sickness that causes rage in a fearsome form. It does not prepare anyone for anything but instead

makes the oppressors feel like they have power they should not possess. It should be cut off the

minute it is seen. So, what should be done about regulating hate speech?

Based off the definition of hate, the administration of each college needs to get together

and draw up an official policy on what type of speech is allowed on their campus. The speech

that will not be tolerated should only center on the premise of hate, not simply offensive. Yes,

each university may have a different understanding on what they specifically consider as ‘hate

speech’ but if they focus on the topic of animosity it makes the regulation narrower and less

convoluted and broad. But aren’t certain campuses expected to have different rules on ‘free

speech’?

Religious universities will probably have a different way of handling a certain situation

and they wouldn’t necessarily allow the same type of speech that is used on public campuses.

For example, a Christian university like Grand Canyon University in Arizona would allow the

open conversation of God and the Bible without question. On the GCU website under “Spiritual

Life”, this is stated, “GCU's foundational documents help define who we are as an institution and

as a community. Christian principles are integrated across everything we do at GCU, including

learning, work and service.” The university blatantly speaks about Christ on their website and

how their faith is a part of everything they do there. In fact, all students have the option to go to

chapel and are encouraged to; this is okay and should be allowed because their a Christian

university and someone with different beliefs can simply go to a different school if they don’t

like the ideas presented to them. Also, talking about one’s religious beliefs is not hate speech.

Yes, it may be considered offensive to some but it’s not hateful. On a public campus all people

are allowed to openly express their various religions because it’s public and more open.

However, all colleges when deciding to draw their ‘lines’ should, again, focus on hate speech,

not what might be considered offensive to someone. It is expected though that a private or

religious college would probably have stricter mandates on what they want said on campus.

However, what if someone disagrees with a certain opinion; is protesting other people’s speech

itself a form of free speech?

Although, protesting someone’s speech could be considered free speech, it’s actually not.

Free speech is defined as the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. If a

group of people protested against someone else’s speech, simply because they disagreed then

they’re basically saying that the other person does not have a right to speak out which is then

taking away their right of freedom of speech. So, no protesting someone else’s speech simply on

the terms of it being offensive is not free speech. It could also backfire as Todd Gitlin states

perfectly in this article, “It can’t be a good thing to turn the development of a culture of

coexistence and decency–which is what you were rightly proposing–to turn it into a police

matter. I think that is misguided, however motivated.” (Gitlin) Basically, this over excessive

need for ‘safe spaces’ and ‘speech codes’ can actually get to a point where everything said

becomes so censored that it is over regulated and the right to free speech disappears. He also
goes on to state that, “What happens at a university is that the thoughts you arrived with get

jarred, get contested, and you are forced to think. A university is a place where one has to get

comfortable with a certain discomfort.” (Gitlin)

Overall, the issue of free speech and what should or should not be allowed and how they

should be handled should be up to every college to decide, but again, on the basis of hate speech,

not offensive speech. The administration of each school and the elected student board from each

grade level should come together and create these speech policies for the student body. Colleges

are already regulating so much from Greek life, clubs, degrees, safety procedures, and

academics, so what is one more regulation? This way, students still feel like they have the right

to state their opinions without dealing with constant backlash for every statement they say but

also the use of hateful words and media are not being tolerated. Therefore, everybody can have a

better understanding of what their rights are when it comes to their voice and no one is being

targeted for their beliefs, sheltered from other points of view, or victimized by others disdain.
 Works Cited

“Christian Identity and Heritage.” Christian Identity and Heritage | Grand Canyon University

EBSCO : eBook Comprehensive Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 1/12/2018 6:00

PM via UNIV OF ARIZONA, AN: 945114 ; Lukianoff, Greg.; Freedom From Speech

Hanlon, Aaron R. “The Trigger Warning Myth.” The New Republic, 14 Aug. 2015

“Johns Hopkins Agrees with Supreme Court, Sidewalk Counseling Is Free Speech.” Students for

Life, 3 Apr. 2013

Sanneh, Kelefa. “Who's Fighting Free Speech?” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 19 June

2017

“Todd Gitlin on 'Hate Speech,' 'Safe Spaces,' and Student Protests.” FIRE, 6 Jan. 2016