The full article, "And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Free Speech at U.S. Universities" suggests solutions vouching for limits of speech that could make students feel 'unsafe'. PEN, an organization which declares its purpose is to "promote literature and defend freedom of expression worldwide" claims to be a 'marketplace of ideas' and a 'guardian of intellectual integrity' yet it is pushing to restrict speakers off campuses that offer novelty into the shallow pool of mainstream media.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of petitioning the government, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. However, throughout the nation's history, the Supreme Court has ruled that these rights may be limited in the interest of the greater public good.
Some restrictions on speech are understandable, necessary and constitutional. Scenarios in which free speech may be limited is when it is has a tendency to lead to illegal action, is lewd or indecent or evokes a danger which is false. This form of speech would be unlawful and potentially dangerous.
This is when the very definition of "dangerous" is changed to accommodate those who are easily offended. Millennials, facing no real harm when a speaker would oppose their worldview, will redefine "unlawful". Students are now announcing that what they would consider an 'intolerant' speaker, hurtful when, in reality, the only thing getting hurt is their feelings. There is a fine line between potential harm and emotional disturbance just as there is a difference between a 'safe space' and a therapy session.
The students addressed in the article above are in opposition to speech that would be considered intolerant or that would not affirm to everyone on campus. In essence, they are claiming to promote "inclusiveness and diversity" when, in reality, their intentions are to reestablish free speech rights as wrong unless these 'rights' are in total conform to their way of thinking.
Permitting what the majority considers 'non-offensive' speakers exclusively is not only an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, but also a limitation on education itself which requires conflict to thrive. Education, by definition of dictionary.com, is the process of "developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life." How, then, can these young adults strengthen their preparedness for a mature lifestyle when they are encouraged to sit in a padded room with puppies having heard anything they have been 'triggered' by.
This new form of 'free speech' only applies to those with the majority of the power for the time being and downsizes anyone who wishes to speak against the status quo. These Millennials are quite frankly, as Albert Molar put it, "in the name of inclusiveness and diversity (shutting) down exclusiveness and diversity, a diversity of opinions."
