as discussed

Summary

I am convinced that Arkansas State University (A-State) “Freedom of speech” Policy restricts the rights and opportunities for students to raise voice over their concerns as well as limits the chances for A-State’s board to improve the university quality in terms of receiving feedbacks. Though the policy states to comply with the First Amendment, A-State students fail to enjoy completely the Constitutional Law. Amending A-State “Freedom of Speech” Policy based on rights and responsibilities from students and school’s board would generate both sides incentive structures and a positive communication among A-State members

“Problem” or issue of concern

The Arkansas State University (A-State) “Freedom of speech” Policy restricts the rights and opportunities for students to raise voice over their concerns as well as limits the chances for A-State’s board to improve the university quality in terms of receiving feedbacks. Though the policy states to comply with the First Amendment, A-State students fail to enjoy completely the Constitutional Law. In fact, the opportunity to express views by students seems to be challenged when the university regulates the areas and manner of expressions. The locations’ area for free speech are estimated to cover one percent of A-State Jonesboro campus. This means that the student voice will not be largely heard in case university matter is brought up. Additionally, most of the school’s board body may fail to be aware of student concern because content must be reviewed by the Vice President for Student Affairs or the Director of Student Development and Leadership in advance. As human expression can be ranged from satisfaction by support to dissatisfaction by disapproval, under this policy, expressions related to objection to one particular issue is likely to be rejected. Lastly, as stated in the policy that “the mission of Arkansas State University is education”, the policy may not successfully pursue such mission, in that education should be built on exchanging ideas between educators and learners, so that both sides can acknowledge reasonable things. If the policy restricts the student’s concern by being reviewed and regulating material factor such as time, location and manner of expressions, it can be considered as a forceful behavior and the level of freedom will be decreased. I hypothesize that amending A-State freedom of speech policy will result in: (1) students would be more likely to self-consciously improve their learning environment by speaking out their interest in university matter, (2) students would educate themselves by receiving and reflecting public reactions, (3) school’s board would develop the university by satisfying student’s right to express their views, (4) school’s board would get sources to build the university from students’ ideas.

Literature review

Students enrolling in A-State have the right to enjoy freedom of speech. The Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992) says that:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In other words, the First Amendment protects freedom relating to expression. It ensures the liberty to prevent institution to restrict the rights of individuals. Besides, discussing the free speech over education, Thomas Sowell in “Inside American Education” book states that:

“The purpose of education is to give the student the intellectual tools to analyze, whether verbally or numerically, and to reach conclusions based on logic and evidence.”

Or:

““If you have no right to disapprove, then your approval means nothing. It may indeed be distressing to someone to have you express your opinion that his lifestyle is disgusting and his art, music or writing is crude, shallow, or repugnant, but unless you are free to reach such conclusions, any praise you bestow is hollow and suspect. To say that A has a right to B’s approval is to say that B has no right to his own opinion. What is even more absurd, the “sensitivity” argument is not even consistent, because everything changes drastically according to who is A and who is B. Those in the chosen groups may repudiate any aspect of the prevailing culture, without being considered insensitive, but no one from the prevailing culture may repudiate any aspect of other cultures.”

According to Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s survey 92% of students being interviewed advocate the idea that they feel belonged to a college/university when they are exposed to various views from other students. Specifically, to conduct the survey, the students were asked about their reactions to statements from their peers. The question gave hypothesis on four level of intensity of the statement: strongly disagree, offensive, hurtful and racist. The result is that if their friends say something the surveyees agree with, 72% of them will agree with the statement and the likelihood is that they will form and develop friendship. Meanwhile, if the statements give out negative feelings, above 50% will try to understand their friends’ view. The more the level of intensity of the statement is, the more they will engage to that speaker.

Incentive structures of major players: current

· Students will want to enjoy their right of speech with minimal amount of effort and time expended

· School’s board will want to meet their responsibility with minimal amount of effort and time expended

Policy proposal

· The mission of A-State would be added: education associated with learning, teaching, research and scholarship

· Include in the policy the part about student right and responsibility about at A-State

· The policy gives explanation to “disruption” action in case the free speech is misused, followed by ways of security

· Representatives who want to raise concern over the matter would be announced to the school’s board about his/her ability as well as awareness of his/her role.

· The Advisory Committee should be formed joined by A-State faculties and students so that students who want to free publicize their concern can get consultants.

Incentive structures of major players: post-policy change

· Students will want to enjoy their right of speech with minimal amount of effort and time expended, under the guidance, some student will be self-conscious of their role of freely raising their voice over the matters, which helps them grow and build their learning environment

· School’s board will want to meet their responsibility with minimal amount of effort and time expended, some will try to improve A-State quality and rank by listening to students’ feedbacks, satisfying students’ rights and develop the university based on facts.

Expected outcome of policy implementation

I predict that students will experience their liberty at A-State, besides, some students will improve themselves by bravely speaking out their concern, acknowledging moral standards about their concern under A-State faculties and peers’ guidance as well as from public reactions. I also expect that while members from A-State administration complete their responsibilities, many will positively engage in student’s interest and create an efficient market place of ideas.

Proposed measures of policy effect

Student feedbacks such as survey or interview could be used to measure the effect of the policy. By analyzing the level of satisfaction by A-State students and faculties can give evidence on policy effects

Reference

Constitution (1789). United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

Sowell, Thomas (March 14, 2003). Inside American Education. Free Press

Education, F. f. (October 2017). Speaking Freely – What Students Think about Expression at American College.