College campuses have a long history of student protests, and these demonstrations invite questions about the limits of free speech. How far is too far? In this pair of essays, University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein and Trinity Washington University president Patricia McGuire present two different views of the role of free speech in the university. Read them and consider how your ideas fit into this conversation.
- In her piece, Finkelstein argues for stricter rules for free speech on university campuses. Why? How might free speech rights conflict with Title VI protections?
- Finkelstein contends that the current free speech rules model on college campuses “privilege student expression over most other values.” What other values does she think universities should prioritize?
- McGuire begins her essay with a short personal narrative. What’s the point of this narrative? How does this story support McGuire’s central argument?
- So what? Who cares? Why does free speech – and restrictions placed on free speech – matter to university administrators? To students and faculty? To people outside the university community? Use a template from Chapter 9 to explain what’s at stake in this conversation.
- These essays are set up as a pro/con debate. However, McGuire and Finkelstein don’t disagree on everything. Identify a key point or belief about free speech on college campuses that both authors agree with.
- Respond to the conversation Finkelstein and McGuire are participating in. Which argument persuaded you the most? Why? Use a template from Chapter 4 to frame your response. Draw on your own experiences to support your view.
They Say I Blog 
I don’t believe we should have limited of speak and protects in any context once we start limiting ourselves to anything is when are no longer the land of the free that the founding fathers had planned for us. I disagree with X’s view that freedom should be limited because, look at the current state of the u.s.a it is divided in all matters and when one side disagrees with the other’s punishment follows soon after. Both Finkelstein and Mcgurie both agree that if something is done on one side of the fine-tuned balance it would be ruined forever.
LikeLike
Both Finkelstein and McGuire agree that universities should teach students how to speak. While McGuire is convinced that that teaching consists of providing a forum for letting students make mistakes so that they learn as they go. Finkelstien isn’t as optimistic that people learn that way. She argues for requirements of respect and enforcing those expectations. Both of these views overlook what I consider of first importance: forming the heart of the speaker. As Jesus of Nazareth taught, “The good man brings good things out of the good treasure of his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil treasure of his heart. For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45). This being the case, if students love their neighbors and their enemies, their speech can be unfettered and free. They can say absolutely anything, and it will always be shaped by love. To the extent that students despise one another and use words to cause damage, the dilemma of speech restrictions will continue. I argue for an education of the heart.
LikeLike
Claire Finkelstein argues for stricter rules on free speech because she believes that current campus policies give too much freedom to student expression and not enough protection to students who might be harmed by offensive or discriminatory speech. She points out that this can conflict with Title VI, which requires schools to prevent discrimination based on race or national origin. Finkelstein thinks universities should focus more on creating an inclusive and respectful environment rather than allowing all speech, even if it’s harmful. On the other hand, Patricia McGuire starts with a personal story to show how tough conversations can help people grow, which supports her belief that students should be exposed to challenging ideas. Both authors agree that speech has real consequences and that universities have a responsibility to set the tone, even if they disagree on how far restrictions should go. I personally found Finkelstein’s argument more convincing because I think schools have a duty to protect students from speech that can create a hostile environment. I’ve seen how certain comments in class, even if meant as “free speech,” can shut down meaningful discussion and make others feel unwelcome. This debate matters because it affects how universities balance learning, safety, and inclusion. It is for society as a whole and not just for students.
LikeLike
As Finkelstein says, students should be taught by the universities about topics that fall under the umbrella of societal problematic controversies, and are often brought up in free speech discussions. Going even further, she states it is the school’s job to allow them the tools to make informed decisions on these topics to create informed and credible opinions. Like her, I believe these same principles, but I would argue that McGuire also makes a similar claim, aligning their ideas on the same level, strengthening her argument just the same. McGuire also says schools are responsible for teaching these kids about these controversies by allowing them the space to explore, challenge, and express themselves in a wider range of issues, and that this concept should align with the broad-minded and tolerant learning environment of that institution. Going even further into that, McGuire argues that the challenging of these political ideas is the university’s responsibility, ensuring further in evidential form that these students are making informed decisions, by giving them tools to experience both sides. Contrastingly to your point, I find this argument more convincing in assessing a university’s level of learning, safety, and inclusion, helping students understand the essential skill of societal means post-grad and the experience as a student. I believe as you stated, that this argument matters because it affects society on a larger scale, as well as students, but I would add that the authors agree more than disagree at the core of this topic, and both hold the most value to the safety, educational understanding, and mutual respect of the human opinion, no matter how different the circumstances.
LikeLike
Finkelstein and McGuire both argue that universities should teach students how to speak but they disagree on the method. McGuire supports open discussion where students can make mistakes and learn from them, while Finkelstein believes respectful speech must be required and enforced.
LikeLike
Debates about free speech on college campuses often begin with one major question: Should universities focus on open expression, or should they limit speech that may harm others? In this discussion, Claire Finkelstein argues that universities should place stronger limits on speech when it conflicts with safety and inclusion, while Patricia McGuire believes campuses should remain places where students can encounter difficult ideas and learn through open discussion. Some commenters also reflect this divide. For example, one commenter argues that any restriction threatens freedom itself, while others suggest that respectful boundaries are necessary for productive learning.
I find McGuire’s argument more convincing, though I also understand why Finkelstein raises concerns. College is one of the few places where students are exposed to ideas they may strongly disagree with. If speech is restricted too quickly, students may avoid difficult conversations rather than learning how to respond thoughtfully. Allowing open discussion helps students develop critical thinking skills and prepares them for real-world disagreement beyond campus. In this sense, universities should teach students how to engage with uncomfortable ideas instead of shielding them entirely.
At the same time, Finkelstein’s concerns should not be dismissed. Speech that directly targets or humiliates others can make classrooms feel unsafe and prevent meaningful participation. Universities also have responsibilities under laws like Title VI to protect students from discrimination. Teachers and administrators may feel pressure to intervene when speech crosses the line between debate and harm. This shows that the challenge is not simply choosing freedom or restriction but finding a balance between them.
Some commenters argue that free speech should never be limited because limits can easily be abused. While this concern is understandable, I believe complete freedom without shared expectations can also silence people indirectly. When students feel attacked or dismissed, they may choose not to speak at all, which weakens the learning environment just as much as censorship does.
A more practical approach would be for universities to allow broad discussion while also teaching clear standards for respectful dialogue. For example, instructors could set guidelines that encourage disagreement with ideas but not personal attacks. This allows students to practice free expression while learning responsibility at the same time.
What this conversation shows is that both authors actually agree on an important point: universities are not just places to transfer information but spaces where students learn how to think and communicate with others. For that reason, the goal should not be total restriction or total freedom, but a campus culture where open dialogue and mutual respect can exist together.
LikeLike
I fully agree with Helen Lewis’s viewpoint that the pandemic has exerted a significant influence on women and that a gender perspective is indispensable for the purpose of responding to crises.
In major public health events like this pandemic, uniform response measures generally are inclined to show different influences due to the gender structure in society. If the differences are ignored, they will exacerbate gender inequality.
To be more specific, I believe that the traditional gender division of labor becomes more significant in crises, where the women typically bear more responsibilities for family care. When schools are closed and public services are reduced, the responsibilities will further compromise the career development, and even promote some women to leave the labor market. At the same time, women account for a higher proportion in positions such as healthcare and community services, which can be conducive to exposing them to higher infection risks. The positions generally have lower salaries, as the consequence of which, this can further enhance the imbalance of risks and rewards.
In addition, it is worth mentioning that the stereotypical expectations of society for women’s roles also lead to their marginalization in decision-making. For example, epidemic prevention materials are prioritized for male, and the voices of women are generally weakened in the crisis response. This can be attributed to the thinking of simplifying complicated social issues into technical responses, as the consequence of which, this fails to recognize that gender equality is an important component of public health. Therefore, incorporating a gender perspective into the crisis response is indispensable for the purpose of ensuring the social fairness and prevention.
On the basis of the aforementioned analysis, I am a firm supporter of the argument of Lewis, regarding the risks of taking “a gender-neutral approach to pandemics. Therefore, we are supposed to pay more attention to the difficulties faced by women in the future.
LikeLike