The Battle Over Free Speech on College Campuses

In 2015 The Atlantic, Salon, The New York Times, and The Washington Post all published pieces about the complex balance between free speech and political correctness on college campuses. This was a pivotal year for this discussion across the country and at the University of Chicago—leaving Americans wondering: How did we get here? Is the First Amendment under attack? Where do you draw the line, if any, between First Amendment rights and offensive speech? Are speech codes and safe spaces needed on campuses? And what responsibility do colleges have to create a climate that encourages an open and respectful exchange of ideas?

The IOP welcomed top minds in the country to examine these issues and see how American collegiate experience has evolved on March 9, 2016. Participants included:

- Adrienne Green, Editorial Fellow for The Atlantic
- Aaron Hanlon, Colby College English Professor, Salon and New Republic contributor
- Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO of Freedom for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), author, and coauthor of The Atlantic's “The Coddling of the American Mind”
- Geoffrey Stone, UChicago Law Professor and Chair of the University of Chicago’s Committee on Freedom of Expression

This event was amoderated by George Washington University Law Professor, author of Lessons in Censorship: How Schools and Courts Subvert Students’ First Amendment Rights,and Visiting Scholar at Harvard Graduate School in Education, Catherine Ross. This event was co-sponored by the International House Global Voices Program.

[allisonjonesphelps]

Great video. Thanks for the thought provoking discussion.

[Potem]

kinda sad that within this discussion there are clearly two sides but everyone is pretending to agree on everything.
"Free speech is important" vs "Free Speech is important but". The "but" is what the discussion should be about but instead everyone is nodding their head throughout.

[mmmars]

I've been watching a lot of these videos and noticed a pattern -- millennials generally have very little understanding of the first amendment.

[rcair]

I say if a person is dumb enough to tell you that he/she hates you or plans to do you harm, by all means let them, its incredibly convenient. Shutting down their speech will only increase their dislike of you and force them to hide their true feelings.

[nickparkison]

The final statement and example of possible hate speech by the woman on the far left is important in understanding that hurtful language is not absolute and solely depends on the interpreter. One person's compliment can be another's hate speech. It requires the reading of the mind who spoke it to prosecute it fairly.

[redpeony]

Identity is socially constructed and therefore ideologically constructed, so it should not be placed beyond critique.

[sniperontheroof]

The moderator at this talk (and really all talks) need to emphasize questions should be short and to the point. It seems everyone wants to give a 2min speech about the context of the question - why not just ask the question?

[MidnightRambler]

"complex balance" hmmmm not really

[thesleepinggiant]

I hate when the audience speaks at intellectually-framed debates. The audience is never concise & tend to ramble on & on, asking like 5+ questions total. They should put more brain power into making sound, concise questions/arguments instead of trying to sound intelligent - it has the opposite effect.

[havenbastion]

That black lady was just talking without having a point. She has no idea what she's doing.

[rufus]

They lost me at "Trigger Warning".

[oldmanfromscenetwentyfour]

Meh. Ineffective banter by whinny pseudo intellectual liberals.
Don't bother watching.