On college campuses, there is a difference between students’ exercising their rights and prohibiting others from exercising theirs. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” As the result of various court cases, the U.S. Courts determined that the freedom of speech protects the right to not speak, wear black armbands in protest of war, use words and phrases that convey political messages, give money to political campaigns, advertise products and services, and engage in symbolic speech (U.S. Courts). The American Civil Liberties Union (2018) defines the First Amendment as the, “right to free expression and free association, which means that the government does not have the right to forbid us from saying what we like and writing what we like.” Freedom of expression encompasses the right to freely express things others may not like. Combs (2018) argued that just because speech could potentially be found offensive, it does not mean it should be restricted (p. 171). However, hate speech is not free speech, a common misunderstanding amongst college students. The American Library Association (2017) defines hate speech as “any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons.” Indeed, Langton, Fricker and others argued that having the freedom to say or question others can undermine free speech because it can prevent marginalized groups from conveying their intended message (as cited in Muldoon, 2017, p. 333). Ultimately, the Chicago Statement would enable institutions to explain to their students the difference between free speech and hate speech and what type of speech is acceptable on the campus.
Controversies surrounding free speech are not new to college campuses. Typically, these issues arise when administrations attempt to prevent the freedom of expression from their student body. Administrations have a history of prohibiting certain guest speakers on campuses, creating hate speech codes, and censoring ideas (Chemerinsky, 2018, p. 1-3). For example, both the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Virginia, Charlottesville have scheduled guest speakers that were met with protests from the respective student bodies. After the protests turned violent, Cal Berkeley cancelled the event creating the question of if free speech was infringed (Chemerinsky, 2018, p. 1). Charlottesville faced heated protests when a white nationalist speaker, Richard Spencer, was scheduled to speak on campus which resulted in one death. Federal judges prevented both Auburn University and Michigan State University from denying Spencer on their respective campuses, and the Ohio State University refused him access but were met by a lawsuit from Spencer (Chemerinsky, 2018, p.1-2). Berkeley has a history of cancelling controversial speakers which students have alleged as a violation of their right to freedom of speech (Combs, 2018, p.170). On these campuses, there is not a well-known speech policy which prevents students from holding the institutions accountable for the cancellation of events and from hearing differing viewpoints. These universities believed they were protecting students’ safety. However, Combs (2018) argued that these cancellations stifled free speech which is not protected by the First Amendment (p. 171). These institutions sought to avoid negative publicity by preventing controversial speakers on their campuses, but in doing so, they attracted negative publicity (Sarabyn, 2010, p.150). While there are boundaries to protect the actions of administration, not all restrictions of free speech are justified, and a speech policy would assist in identifying the limitations of restrictions. The Chicago Statement would name a set of principles that must be upheld by the institution and would allow for institutions to be held accountable in their attempts to restrict free speech.
Free speech is integral to institutions of higher learning. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education [FIRE] argued that universities act as a “marketplace of ideas” where students ideas can compete (2018-a). FIRE believed that the “intellectual vitality” of an institution depends on this competition in order to fully advance the knowledge and education of their students (2018-a). Combs (2018) noted that a core value of American higher education is the exchange of ideas (p.169). Muldoon (2017) noted that “free speech is most valuable in diverse settings” (p. 334). Colleges and universities provide a forum in which students can share those diversities. They develop and test new ideas which builds up their capacity to be better “consumers and producers” of knowledge (Muldoon, 2017, p. 332). Campuses are central to intellectual debate. Individuals generate their own ideas in the competitive market of campuses. They then have the capacity to formulate arguments in their defense while being scrutinized (Muldoon, 2017, p. 333). Through the verdicts of many cases revolving around free speech, the Supreme Court recognizes the “pursuit of knowledge remaining free and open” on campuses of higher education as fundamental to the growth of the nation (Sarabyn, 2010, p. 147). Restricting free speech hinders the educational growth of these students. Institutions of higher learning teach students more than how to pass an exam; they enable them to explore various ways of being a citizen (Muldoon, 2017, p. 335). The Chicago Statement would allow for educators to not only teach students concepts but how to be an informed citizen.
Ultimately, administrations of institutions of higher education should adopt the Chicago Statement. This would benefit the students as they understand what type of speech is accepted. This policy would enable the administration to be held accountable in their attempts to restrict speech. The Chicago Statement should be created in accordance with the institutions’ core values and missions. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Purdue University, American University, and nearly 35 more institutions have implemented a Chicago Statement (FIRE, 2018-b). By adopting this policy, institutions demonstrate their value of free speech and expression from their student body and faculty. Free speech reaffirms the core purpose of an institution of higher education as a marketplace of ideas (FIRE, 2018-b). To adopt this statement, institutions should collaborate with their student government bodies to create a policy that protects free speech in accordance with the mission of the institution (FIRE, 2018-b). This would enable the student voice to play a role in creating an environment that promotes the free exchange of ideas. To create a world of color, higher institutions need to adopt the Chicago Statement, so tomorrow is not black and white but rather a rainbow of ideas.
American Civil Liberties Union. (2018-b). Your right to free expression. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/student-speech-and-privacy
American Library Association (2017, December). Hate speech and hate crime. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/hate
Chemerinsky, E. (2018). The challenge of free speech on campus. Howard Law School. 61(1), 585-600. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4027
Educational Public Policies and the Systematic Oppression of Minories in the US
Education has been called the passport to the American dream. This is the dream that should be equally afforded to all the citizens in this country. The public-school system was the passport to accomplishing the dream. Many of the low income and minority students in the public education system attend low performing schools that are underfunded and under-resourced. Unfortunately, these funding inequities result in a low-quality education for those students with the greatest need and thus making the American dream an elusive dream. The daunting reality is that abhorrent funding injustices continue to exist in this country, and too often the schools serving students with the greatest needs receive the fewest resources. In the education world, the existence of funding inequities has long been a known fact, but the sources of these inequities have not always been obvious. The growing consensus is that poverty, social economic status, and inequity in educational resources have led to continued oppression of minorities.
Public policies have also contributed to the narrative of systemic oppression of marginalized and minority people. It is through deliberate, systemic practices and through policy enactment that public schooling has become the new microcosm for race annihilation. Both explicit and implicit government actions that mandated racial segregation contributed to and predetermined today’s racial segregation (Rothstein, 2014). Additionally, shifts in these resources led to the creation of inadequately funded schools which in turn led to widespread disenfranchisement of black people when it came to economic opportunities and the urban decay of their communities. It is noted that some Black schools were high achieving prior to the Brown case and in spite of the lack of equitable funding.
This paper was driven by the need for answers to the consistent shortfall of revenue funds to adequately fund much need programs in low performing schools to emphasize the obstacles facing minority students’ success in primary and secondary schools. It will focus on the history of school finance policy and funding gaps, root causes of the funding shortage while also looking at the effects of state and local initiatives on funding shortages. It will seek to explain how the gaps have affected schools and the communities in which they serve.
History of school finance policy and funding gaps
Public schools were formed to serve their local communities (Biddle