Round 1
Ninad Gadre: Universities are places for education that trains students to get out and make a difference. These students are adults and should be treated as such. It’s unnecessary to restrict freedom of speech beyond that which the constitution already does. The world beyond the university is rarely a safe space. It throws challenges to people where they may find themselves in uncomfortable situations and need to work still. It’s better to minimize restrictions on freedom of expression so that the environment can naturally create conflicting scenarios and teach students to deal with differing opinions and ways of expression. In regards to Matthew Schultz v. Michigan Technological University, the student’s controversial statement was in fact a humorous post meant to mimic racist statements targeted at minorities. The fact that the university administration failed to recognize the humor resulted in needless trauma for Schultz, which completely goes against the greater goal of maintaining a safe atmosphere.
Anthony Lackey: While a university is intended to be a place where freedom of speech is encouraged in order to allow for the horizons of students to be broadened, it is not intended as a place where people have free reign to say whatever they would like. In the instance of the original Yik Yak post the plaintiff’s statement was in all respects most likely intended as a humorous play on words which were to entice laughter and lightheartedness. However, the reverse could easily be seen where it was stated as a veiled threat against a minority group. Sarcasm, when used, should always be clearly interpretable by the average person. In addition, the content of the conveyed messages should be weighed according to the context of the situation in which it originated, in this instance the world conditions which surround the statement were volatile and dangerous.
Round 2
Lackey: Although it is true that sarcasm is a dangerous area where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is often blurred, there is no better place to play around with the gray area than a university campus. While sarcasm may sometimes offend people, it is important to urge them to be open to varied ways of expression and realize that being offended doesn’t always make the other party wrong. Young people often use humor to interact with their peers, since the ability to mingle with people successfully is vital to future graduates. We all know how the “funny guy” is often the most admired one in the gang. As such, students should be given some slack if they end up stretching their freedom of speech a bit. Moreover, suspending or expelling them from school for a misfired joke is only going to harm them in the long run. Even if the humor has a bigoted intent, it is better to educate the student rather than take strong action just to protect the university image.
Gadre: Words are the literal building blocks of modern life and with them we can and do convey nearly everything pertaining to our existence. It is utilized in every aspect of our life and allows humans to explore the rich tapestry of culture and expand upon the concepts which resided only in our imagination until the creation of language. With words we convey meaning and understanding to each other, but the danger of this is in the interpretation of our messages. We personally know the intended message, but when communicating there are three steps that are performed. First, the formation of the message, then the articulation, followed lastly by the interpretation. Before committing the act of articulation a person must always consider how another person may interpret the message. This brings us to the gray area of sarcasm. Sarcasm is dangerous business and should always be treated carefully and with the knowledge that another may not have the same patterns in their interpretation of your intended message.
Round 3
Gadre: Generation gaps often create a divide when it comes to interpreting social interactions, especially sarcasm. Each generation develops its own colloquial humor and “memes” based on their life experiences and social situation. For example, people on social media use the “N-word” as a term of endearment towards one’s close friends in very specific contexts, and there is a chance that the older folks might miss the nuances of these conversations and consider this interaction to be bigoted. Usually, the older generation is in a position of authority in universities, and this difference of interpretation can impact the way they read the interactions of students. They may end up reinforcing their own biases and take actions against the student that will project the student as guilty when there was no nefarious intent. Since the other students usually have faith in the judgement of the administration, they may end up vilifying an innocent peer simply because of his/her misplaced humor and the over-cautiousness of the administration. As such, it is necessary to account for current colloquialisms while interpreting student behavior.
Lackey: By the same token the current events should be taken into account as well by a university when interpreting student behavior. While the “N-word” can be used within small social circles to signify endearment with the understanding that such behavior between themselves is acceptable, outside of those circles the understanding is lost and the word begins to be interpreted by people outside of this close-knit circle of friends. Such occurrences can be seen in the current topic of discussion where Schultz said something which he and his close friends regard as everyday conversation, while the student body and accompanying faculty interpret as they see fit in accordance with world events. This disconnect is where the person articulating the message should be required to take forethought on their current topic to decide how best to convey their ideas within the proper social sector they are addressing. In closing, speech policies should not be more lenient because it is the place of the communicator to realize when their statements are inappropriate and to properly articulate them in a way which is politically correct.
One Response
The expression is “free rein”, with the metaphor being horses who are allowed latitude, not ” free reign”, relating to Kings who might rule as they wish, which doesn’t make much sense.