Sample Paper

This student argued that the University of Missouri should not adopt a campus hate speech code. (While your paper should be double spaced, we have single spaced this sample paper to make it shorter to print.) Be sure to see the comments at the end of the paper to get an idea of how this paper would be evaluated .
_______________________________________________________________________________

The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution. (Free Speech, 1996)

In order to meet the goals and purposes of higher education, free speech must remain intact. Thus, the University of Missouri should not adopt a campus hate speech code. The First Amendment protects all speech outside the university setting, and what happens outside of the university setting also should be allowed inside. Without an open forum for thought, though it may include hate speech, the university fails in its mission to provide a realistic experience for its students. By abolishing hate speech on university campuses, that open forum for discovery and knowledge is eliminated. As a result, learning and knowledge are stunted. Without the exchange of controversial ideas and opinions, there can be no real change in our society. Experiencing and debating is almost always better than suppressing, because censoring speech can never invoke real change.

The First Amendment protects the right for every person to express opinions about the government and about each other. It actually “protects speech no matter how offensive the content” (Hate Speech on Campus, 1996). Just because something is offensive to one person does not mean it is offensive to another. Justice John M. Harlan wrote in Cohen v. California (1971), “One man's vulgarity is another's lyric” (Free Speech, 1996). In other words, just because something is offensive to one person does not mean that it is offensive by definition.

Speech that is protected outside of the university setting also should be protected inside. Some would argue that hate speech hinders the abilities of minority students to learn, but part of the goal of higher education is to put students out of their comfort zone and to challenge their ways of thinking. In response to a sexual harassment policy being implemented at the University of Massachusetts, lawyer Harvey A. Silvergate (1995), wrote a memo to university administrators opposing the proposal.

One of the primary purposes of a college education and experience is to challenge students, to make them question their comfortable lives and assumptions in short, to discomfort them in one way or another (Silvergate, 1995).

In the same memo, Silvergate also wrote:

If I am allowed to say something on the street corner, in a letter to the editor of a newspaper, or on a radio talk show, surely I should be allowed to say it on the campus of the University of Massachusetts.

This is equally true for the University of Missouri. What can possibly be gained by excluding an element of real life such as offensive speech from the campus experience? The university would only serve to deceive its students by shielding them from realistic situations while they are in school. This, in turn, only serves to place them into the real world with false expectations.

Alternatively, exploring and debating is almost always better than suppressing. The organization Justice on Campus (1995) contends that:

When we hear speech or see images that offend us, nothing is more human than our urge to suppress or to destroy them. But as deeply human is our need to think and to share our thoughts with others. Censorship is the greatest evil because the censor's goal is to imprison the human spirit.

In addition to providing a realistic picture of nonacademic life, allowing all types of speech on campus encourages an open forum for the discussion of all types of ideas. Discussion of controversial issues and different points of view are the fuel for a useful education. That is why higher education has a responsibility to ensure that all forms of speech are protected, analyzed, and addressed. “The right of free speech is indivisible. When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied” (Hate Speech on Campus, 1996). By denying one point of view, we eliminate the open forum. A speech code on any university campus only hinders the ability of students and faculty to fully explore the market of ideas available to them. The University of Missouri is no exception to the idea that academic freedom is the bedrock of a free society.

If we do not allow open expression, however hateful it is, then there can be no change, no growth. Racism, sexism, ageism, etc. are not going to diminish without being addressed in higher education. As noted by the ACLU (Hate Speech on Campus, 1995), “Verbal purity is not social change.” Barring certain types of speech would be a seeming quick fix for issues such as racism, sexism, ageism, and homophobia, which often comprise hate speech. But racist statements are not the real problem between the races; racism is. If we bar all racially biased comments on campus, all we have done is fuel the racism. We have then given hatred the power to lurk and grow within us instead of communicating and debating about it in the open.

If hate speech is not allowed to occur openly, the problem of racism is never addressed. Like racism, hate speech itself is not the problem; hate is. As members of a society, we must communicate in order to solve problems and grow as individuals. This includes addressing hateful ideas and opinions. We can make no progress if we do not allow offensive kinds of speech to exist on campus. By barring them, we run the risk of being silenced ourselves.

A hate speech code at the University of Missouri would be detrimental to everyone, from students to faculty. The First Amendment protects all kinds of speech, including the offensive. It does this in order to ensure that all voices are heard and that all issues can be addressed. To go through college with the idea that offensive speech does not happen is detrimental to students and to the society in which they live. The educational system is based on the idea that communication leads to learning and that learning leads to personal growth. Without the open forum for thought and the freedom to express controversial ideas, a higher education is worth less. Moreover, no one ever solved a controversial gender issue or a racial conflict in silence. There must be communication so that debate can transpire. In order for any change in our society to transpire, offensive speech must be allowed to continue. It can only be addressed and learned from if it is equally protected by the Constitution. Mike Godwin, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says, “when it comes to the Bill of Rights, what you don't use, you lose. The First Amendment is a terrible thing to waste.” (Comments and quotes, 1995). If anyone has a responsibility to use the freedom granted by the First Amendment, higher education is at the top of the list.

References

American Civil Liberties Union. (1996). Hate speech on campus. [Online]. Available: http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp16.html.

American Civil Liberties Union (1996). [Online] Free Speech. Available: www.aclu.org/issues/freespeech/isfs.html.

Justice on Campus. (1996). Comments and quotes on sexual harassment and free speech. [Online]. Available: http://joc.mit.edu/comments.html.

Justice on Campus. (1995). Speech codes and disciplinary charges. [Online]. Available: http://joc.mit.edu/roundup.html.

Silverglate, H. A. (1995, November 23). Memo from Harvey Silverglate. [Online]. Available: http://joc.mit.edu/amherst/silverglate.112495.txt.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation

Notice: Your position papers carry a different total point value then this example paper!

30 possible points
30 points: Introduction
Attention-getting, relevant “hook”
Relevant general comments that flow smoothly into the thesis
Clearly stated, concise thesis and preview in 1st paragraph
Clear, focused and interesting introduction
Clearly stated thesis statement and preview in the first paragraph
Score: 24 points

90 possible points
Two to three clearly developed arguments that support the thesis
Definitions of important terms
Strong lead sentences in paragraphs
Use of at least 3 sources that provide credible and relevant supporting material
Development of a single argument within a paragraph
Score: 72 points

15 points: Conclusion
Clear restatement of thesis statement
Clear concise summary of arguments
Clear, focused, and interesting conclusion
Sense of finality that leaves the reader with lsting impression
Score: 13 points

15 possible points
Proper Form and Style
APA Format
Page numbers, 1” margins, Headers
Grammar, Spelling, Sentence Structure
Transitions
Appropriate voice and tone
Score: 15 points

Total points: 126 points

Comments:

There is a clear thesis statement in the first paragraph. The preview of the main arguments in the paper are also in the first paragraph but the use of multiple sentences for each argument makes it unclear whether these are part of the same argument or an additional argument. Either rewrite the preview of the argument into one sentence or use a transitional device (e.g., First, Second, Third) to set off your arguments in the preview. Your second paragraph appears to be your first argument but it is actually more of your introduction. Move it up in the paper and edit to eliminate redundancy.

The paragraphs begin with strong lead sentences. I can tell which of the arguments in the preview is going to be developed in the paragraph after reading this first sentence. You generally do a good job of telling why your sources are experts.

The Silvergate quotations in paragraph 3 are about sexual harassment and you need to make the comparison to hate speech more obvious to the reader. It appears as if this is irrelevant since sexual harassment and hate speech are different concepts.

You do a good job of connecting your arguments to higher education (and thus the University of Missouri). For example, in paragraph 4, you point out how an open forum is particularly important at a university. In this paragraph, use the concept of a market place of ideas.

In paragraph 6, the last sentence does not address the argument being developed in this paragraph. The paragraph is arguing that hate rather than hate speech is the problem but concludes with a comment about the risk of being silenced ourselves. This is a different argument and should either be developed in another paragraph or deleted.

Good summary of the main points in the conclusion. This paragraph could be more concise.

You rely exclusively on Internet sources. Vary the type of source for your supporting material. Although you have listed 5 references, there are only 3 sources because two of the references are simply different pages from the same web site.