Universities do not exclude speakers whose viewpoints are abhorrent from camps.

In the twenty-first century, there have been many discussions in various countries around the world about what hate speech and free speech really mean. This has sparked debate on several big campuses around the world, including UC Berkeley. The most vexing question is not only determining whether speech is free or hate speech, but also deciding whether to keep speakers whose speech is deemed abhorrent and harmful within the vicinity of Campuses. This thesis is intended to inform the reader of the main reasons why speakers whose opinions are considered abhorrent and unsafe are the best for those campuses and should be allowed to remain. This work consists of a thorough research and has come up with strong and unbeatable reasons why such speakers should be kept as discussed below.
To begin with, speakers whose speech is viewed as abhorrent in most instances enlighten the students about their rights. The speakers teach the students on how to punch fear and turn their weaknesses into strength. In most Universities, there is some undeniable poor service delivery. The students may not realize this until that time that they will find an abhorrent speaker whose views may be seen by the University as dangerous. After sensitization, the students become aware of their rights to better service delivery and therefore demand for it (Mill & Robson 67). Through the lecturing of the students on their rights, the Universities are put on toes and always advocate for the best service delivery.
Secondly, speakers whose views are considered abhorrent and dangerous may voice their useful ideas and influence the students to borrow them for the benefit of the society as a whole. Just like in the pamphlet containing the communist manifesto by John Stuart and Robson, the speakers may have brilliant ideas that in reality and adorable. In the communist manifesto, the main issues which were addressed by the two counterparts included the ownership of the economic resources by the community, that is, by everybody in the community as opposed to private ownership. This idea was perfect because when the economic resources were left in the hands of the few, the less privileged continued to suffer while only the few rich people enjoyed life. In other words, the Universities may try to eliminate such speakers due to self interest just as the capitalists fought tirelessly against communism.
Thirdly, it is one way of promoting the constitutional rights. In most countries of the world, it is articulated in the constitution that everyone has a right to freedom of speech. This an enough reason why the speakers whose views are considered abhorrent and dangerous should be kept in the Universities in the first place. Since most countries are democratic, therefore the government is ruled by the people and this ensures that no one’s idea is left behind. Through free speech by these speakers in the Universities, the students are able to share the experience of their leaders. They can feel some sense of defense from their speakers because they will learn how to fight together as a team. This team building among the students is very healthy for national defense too. In the ancient history, the people who fought for independence for their countries were the academicians who were motivated by the speeches of their leaders. The speeches that motivated them were considered dangerous by the colonialists just like some Universities find it a bitter pill to swallow when it comes to some inciting speech.
Fourthly, such speakers crave for ensuring the University is among the best. When the students are incited to fight for their rights, they fight for their rights together as one with all their might till the end of their woe. When their demand is finally met, for example, when they fight for the increase of learning facilities, they will only use the facilities and leave them in the University. Even though the University may find it difficult to meet some demands, they finally enjoy the new improvements after they have finally met them. The University therefore remains a University of choice to many due to some changes in structures, learning materials and many other lucrative resources brought about by the students’ demand and not out of their own plan. It is clear then to say that for any good change to come there must be ups and downs. At least an effort is essential and this is why such speakers must not by any means sent out of the Universities is any good change must be realized.
Students are able to develop interpersonal skills that are very vital in the society. Speakers who speak with a lot of vigor and courage are good example of the leaders who are required to stand out for the society (Mill & Robson 67). It is through them that the students can gather what it takes to address a mammoth crowd without any fear. No student would admire chicken-hearted speakers who speak to please the crowd because they want to save their neck or job. Outstanding speakers are the typical examples of the few people who died fighting for independence of which they did not reap its benefits but new their descendants would reap what they saw. All the Universities should not fail our forefathers by not allowing people to speak out their minds clearly with no fear.
Resilient speakers may be seen as harmful people in the Universities but this is not true as they promote self reliance. Through the speakers whose views are regarded as abhorrent and dangerous, the students are in a position to decide whether to react to a situation or not. This will depend on whether the student is able to face the consequences of his or actions. This decision making process on whether to fight for your right or not is very necessary and important in building on one’s self-reliance (Mill 89). It makes the students to develop a strong and unshakeable character needed in the solution or critical societal problems.
Despite all the benefits of free speech in the Universities such as UC Berkeley, there are a number of critiques that free speech in Universities faces. A number of people are worried and see the Universities not efficient when they can still have a space for speakers whose views seem to be abhorrent and dangerous. Some even complain bitterly and wish they had the power to send such speakers away with an immediate effect without any bargain. Such opposing groups have the following reasons why the speakers whose views pose dangers should be done away with.
First and foremost, speeches that are abhorrent and dangerous may cause hatred. When the speakers whose views are dangerous and abhorrent are left in the Universities they may utter some words that cause differences among the students, or between the students and their lecturers. These differences may lead to undesirable perils such as fights among the students in the Universities, strikes held by the students against the administration and so forth. Such strikes may lead to the destruction of the University structures such as the buildings and other resources. When this happens, the Universities that fall victim of the circumstance are worsened off.
Secondly, it may lead to racial discrimination in a multinational University. Racial discrimination which of course is the undermining people by the skin color has over the years been a major challenge in the world. Human rights are universal hence everyone is equal to the other despite the race. Speakers that promote dangerous speech may show elements of racial discrimination in their speech. Racial discrimination has resulted to international differences just because of some few racists. Racism has been experienced in the black continent countries and the white countries as each race thinks they are the most superior beings. To avoid this situation and disputes caused by racist speakers, the critiques advocate for the elimination of such speakers from the Universities if peace is indeed desirable. All races are equal and they should interact anywhere freely without undermining each other. In general racism causes conflicts and should be avoided at any cost.
Thirdly, abhorrent and dangerous speeches may lead to deterioration of the students’ performance (Mill & Robson 74). This group argue that in case where the speaker attack a specific group based on their class performance, for instance, a lecturer talking about the students’ inabilities, such groups of students will lose focus not to mention the loss of confidence in their ability. They will always reflect the words of the reckless speaker and forever they may fail to improve. The main mission and vision for any University is to ensure the production of efficient individuals and if the speakers with dangerous speeches can be the obstacles to achieving this, they should not be kept in the Universities according to the critiques. Only the staff and people who can help the University to achieve its goals should be of use and kept in the University.
Lastly, abhorrent and dangerous speech may lower the fame of a University and hence register low number of new students. In the Universities where there are continuous strikes, the possibility that people will apply for it is very minimal. Human beings always seek for peace as no one is willing to die a careless death. Students applying for the entry in University will consider such factors as security. In a case where most Universities in the country are full of violence, the students always prefer to learn from abroad where they can find a peaceful and conducive environment for studying. A country that has most of her citizens studying abroad may suffer a brain drain as the students may get employed in those countries they go to for studies. The country also suffers economically because funds which it should receive in form of students’ fee are taken to foreign countries. This has been evident in the most countries in the African continent that has over the years been experiencing wars. The wars are traced to have their origin from the incitement of leaders who tend to incite their supporters against his or her oppose side. This is a reality to what happens in the Universities if the speakers with abhorrent and dangerous speech are left to have their stay at the Universities.
In conclusion, abhorrent speakers should be kept in the Universities because the speeches they make are not necessarily meant to cause chaos and trouble but to give the Universities a challenge as an opposition party does in any democratic government. The speeches are in most cases productive and involve inculcating the new ideas into the students. The Universities such as the UC Berkeley should instead see how to handle such people and embrace their good ideas for the University’s progress. They should be able to respond to the grievances that may result from such speeches and tailor their solutions in the most amicable manner. This work therefore recommends for the keeping of the speakers whose views are considered abhorrent if at all they want to register a stellar performance in the near future. The speakers and the students are part and parcel of the improvements and success that a University may make. They demand for new improvements, pay school fees in case of students and thus the University needs both the students and the speakers.
Works Cited
John Stuart. "On liberty." A Selection of his Works. Macmillan Education UK, 2012. 1-147.
Mill, J. S., & Robson, J. M. (2014). Collected works of John Stuart Mill: Volume VI.