The Instigator
morganamonett
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
christopher1006
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Speech Codes in Place at Universities Should be Banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
christopher1006
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 448 times Debate No: 68199
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

morganamonett

Pro

Speech codes at universities are allowing college students to think that the world outside of their campus will not have anything to say that disagrees with their views or is offensive to them or someone else. They provide that illusion to the sensitized students, who are in for a big surprise when they meet the real world, which is much more cruel than they think. They also violate our First Amendment rights as American citizens. It does not matter if someone disagrees with homosexual marriage, and it certainly does not help these students to become productive citizens of the country. A student from Princeton University recently posted on the Princeton Microagression Complaint Facebook page (which is ridiculous to even have in the first place) that he felt that it was against the speech code for people to tease him for the way that he says "cool whip." That is what the speech codes are teaching students. They should definitely be banned, they take away our First Amendment rights and they are turning students into marshmallows.
christopher1006

Con

Speech codes - A rule or regulation that limits, restricts, or bans speech beyond the strict legal limitations upon freedom of speech or press found in the legal definitions of harassment, slander, libel and fighting words. - Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Micro-aggression - Everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership. Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com...

I will counter the points of the Pro as follows:
1. Speech codes cause illusions contrary to life.
2. Speech codes violate our first amendment.
3. Princeton Micro-aggression Complaint.

1. I stand in contrast to the assertion by the Pro, that speech codes prepare students for life. I will take a quote directly from a page on the US Department of labor, "Under federal law and Department of Labor (DOL) policy, harassment by DOL employees of DOL employees based on race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, genetic information, sexual orientation, or parental status is prohibited. The Department of Labor does not permit harassing conduct by anyone in the workplace, including contractors." While the wording does vary as you will find if you visit various programs on workplace harassment, the gist is going to be very much the same. While the pro has a negative view on the subject, assuming that it will make students who are unaware of their flaws, this quote helps to prove that in fact it allows students to know what to expect in life.

We as American citizens do, with special exceptions, have the right to exercise our rights stipulated in the first amendment of the Constitution. However, simply because we have the right does not mean that we should use the right. The common term used in society is being politically correct. With Americans becoming increasingly aware of the massive variation of values that there are, they are also realizing that they cannot say what they wish and get away with it, especially in the workplace. In a work environment, workers must be able to communicate adequately and work well together. This cannot be accomplished with people who have no understanding of what it means to "hold your tongue".

2. The pro claims that speech codes violate our right as American citizens to free speech. In this they are correct, but at the same time the context of their assertion nullifies its value. When students enroll in and begin attending a college or university (hereafter both will simply be referred to as university for less redundancy), they must sign an agreement to abide by the rules of the entity they are contracting with. This is not enforced on the passer by, instead the students signed and agreed that they would follow these speech codes, nullifying any violation of the first amendment.

3. The final point to cover is the specific example offered by the pro on a student reporting an apparently ridiculous thing where he should have just moved on. However, I would like to note that the complaint he filed does fall completely within the definition of Micro-aggressions. He reported being made fun of often for his unique pronunciation of the word "cool whip" as he fell in to a minority in this particular case. Rather than being a "marshmallow", as the pro describes students who are in effect being trained to be aware of their actions, he dutifully reported to the appropriate area his issue.

In summation, the con argument has brought up and negated his major points, the minor ones appear to be so closely related that they were considered a part of one of the three points for the purpose of this round. Aside from my two sources for those definitions, below you will find directly referenced as well as helpful sources that I used in formulating my response.

- http://www.eeoc.gov...
- http://www.dol.gov...
- http://www.nationalreview.com...
Debate Round No. 1
morganamonett

Pro

Despite the fact that harassment is prohibited within the workplace, there is no restriction outside of that. To assume that one will be sheltered with the false blanket of government restrictions all of their life is simply ignorance. It is true that sometimes we exercise our First Amendment rights inappropriately, but college students are adults, not elementary school kids fighting over the colored pencils. They are entitled to their right. There should simply be no reason to include speech codes in the contract. College students, as I stated before, are adults. Protecting them will actually harm them in their future, such as in the workplace, where it will be much harder for those students to accept any criticism. They are so sensitive that they assume that everything that they do not want to hear is offensive, which is not the case. Speech codes are teaching this, and it is to the detriment of society. As for the micro-aggressions, it is true that he should have just moved on. It may fall completely within the definition, however, that does not make it reasonable for him to file a complaint about it. One's pronunciation of "cool whip" should not matter to them so much that they feel the need to report it as a violation. These students are more than being trained to be aware of their actions, they are being trained to think that any form of teasing, whether it be playful or not, is a harmful thing. More than that- they are being trained that it is not okay to say what they think because it may offend someone. The fact that there even is an area to report offenses of light teasing is sad, and is yet another reminder of the weak-mindedness of the Millenials.
christopher1006

Con

Definitions:
weak-minded: Having or showing a lack of good sense or judgment. - Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Millennial: Aa person reaching young adulthood around the year 2000. - OxfordDictionaries

My debate will flow as follows: (Note that 5 and 6 are out of order in the pros argument, this is to save on redundancy.

1. No restrictions of speech code outside of workplace.
2. They will live their life in ignorance.
3. College students entitled to first amendment on campus.
4. Protection will harm.
5. Students being trained to believe that any form of teasing is harmful.
6. Unreasonable for student to file example complaint.


1. This is true, excepting schools, that the workplace is the main area where speech codes are found and enforced with legal support. However, the con would like to note the significance of the workplace. The Beareu of Labor reported that there was approximately 8.7 million unemployed Americans, of course this is in reference to the labor force and not actual population. This means that 94.4 percent of Americans were employed. With such a large portion of our citizens in the workplace, this is not as irrelevant as the pro suggests. In fact, it reinforces that future workers need to be trained to understand the dynamics of their place of work.

2. The pro claims that they will live their life in ignorance due to these speech codes. However, the con would like to observe that the pro has so far not given anything other than subjective reasoning for this. As the con has not found evidence pointing to the likelihood of this claim, the point is difficult to debate in a logical manner.

3. The con will make this point clear once again as it is very much a key point. The students signed an agreement to follow the speech codes. There is no evidence that the pro can bring up pointing to anything other than a mutual agreement to the codes. Therefore it does not violate the first amendment as the student is exercising their right to liberty by signing this contract.

4/5. The con will make a recommendation for the pro to read the source material published by the Santa Clara University in California. For convenience it will be linked in the sources. To summarize, the reading is explaining the purpose of their speech code, which is very similar to most university speech codes in the USA. The students are not being harmed but benefited by having it ingrained in to them to not resort to derogatory comments. As these are universities, the environment is educational which is difficult to do when bigotry is allowed to run rampant.

6. The pro appears to agree that the report fell within the definition of micro-aggressions and yet was unreasonable. This creates a logical fallacy as the report meeting the definition of a Micro-Aggression is required to make a reasonable complaint to the Face book page that is meant for them. It is equivalent to claiming that a man stealing money is robbery but it's unreasonable to report because it was only one dollar. To some, they will see the scale of the act, others will only see the act. Understanding this, laws, rules and therefore this debate is focused on the act itself rather than the scale.

The final point of the pro about the Millennials is off-topic unless the pro can prove otherwise, it would not further the debate to continue discussion on this unless the pro had established some kind of supported connection between this statement and the rest of their argument.

To summarize, the pro brought forth no significant arguments that were not previously made and has still failed to provide evidence from a listed source, risking the credibility of their points.

Sources:
http://www.scu.edu...
http://www.bls.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
morganamonett

Pro

morganamonett forfeited this round.
christopher1006

Con

As the pro has forfeited the round, I will not continue the debate in the interest of fairness. I urge voters to only consider the previous rounds in their decision.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by christopher1006 2 years ago
christopher1006
Just to give you a heads up, you don't have much time to respond. Just in case you haven't checked.
Posted by morganamonett 2 years ago
morganamonett
You can just get started.And yes, that is ok.
Posted by christopher1006 2 years ago
christopher1006
Would you like acceptance in the first round or for me to just get started? Also it'll be several hours before I can type up a full response as I'd like to do that from a computer. Just looking for some clarification.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
morganamonettchristopher1006Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Basically, Pro's arguments were unsourced and hampered by focusing solely on the micro-aggression aspect of speech codes. Especially since Pro dropped all of Con's arguments made in the second round, Con wins arguments by default. However, I think Pro was as good as gone, by then. The contractual agreement counter-response from Con was particularly damaging. Con also managed to turn Pro's arguments on the benefits of free speech. Already, without even mentioning every point in the debate, Pro's arguments could not come near to showing that an outright ban is required, so arguments go to Con. Source points go to Con, too, due to being the only one to provide any and because they helped make solid arguments. Conduct to Con, too, for Pro's round forfeit. Just as an aside, Con is a very talented debater.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
morganamonettchristopher1006Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used sources and did not forfeit. Source and Conduct points to Con.