Contraversial Speakers Allowed on College Campuses Many controversial speakers are wrongfully perceived as hazards to many communities, when in fact, they should be highly respected for going against the grain and daring to be different by challenging the current knowledge. College campuses around the nation are banning multiple speakers in fear that a riot might break out or someone might get offended. Currently, controversial speakers are glared at as mere trouble makers, but they should be appreciated because of how passionately they bring new ideas to the table, and they, most definitely, should be allowed to speak at college campuses. One of the major reasons why controversial speakers should be allowed to speak at college campuses is college students need these speakers to listen to and develop their own opinions. They could do this by going to a debate between two controversial speakers, listen to both points, then think about what was said and form their own point of view.
An example of the previously stated assertion is in the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier case. A school principal censored a student newspaper by removing some of the articles prior to publication because he felt the some of the student’s body would feel uncomfortable and targeted by the topics. The students felt that the principal’s actions were unfair and violated their first amendment rights of freedom of speech and press. They took the case to court, and the decision was 5 to 3 with one jurier undecided in favor or the school district. This case shows how even though the students have freedom of speech and press if it will impact the audience or others negatively it isn’t allowed.
That’s all I want is just to limit the access that people have to firearms. Another argument would be to not leave people defenseless but as I stated before there are other ways to protect yourself. Right now there is a debate going on about letting people carry guns onto school campuses because of school shootings that happened in “gun-free” zones. I do not think that would be a wise idea because if any little misunderstanding, argument, or dispute went on and someone really disagreed with it, then who knows what would happen. Fights in schools happen all the time, but usually the worst of it is a couple punches thrown.
Also it has been observed that the issue of concealed carry has gained national importance as we have the issue being debated in the congress even in the legislature if it is the right way to follow in trying to deal with the attacks and crimes within the college campuses. This clearly shows the magnitude of the issue and that it is of importance in terms of personal security because the government as much as it tries cannot provide security to every person all the time (Bradley, 6). Recently, it has been observed that there is an increase in college attacks and as a security measure some have suggested that professors and students in these campuses be allowed to carry concealed weapons so as to be able to defend themselves in instances of attack. But it has been observed that in most
Due to the recent upheaval of violent crimes on campus, many pro-gun activist have suggested that both the students and teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Those for this may claim that their rights have been violated because many college campuses refuse to allow weapons of any kind on campus. It is not the right to carry a gun which is in debate here, but rather it is whether or not guns should be allowed on a college campus. The Constitution of The United States of America already grants citizens the right to carry guns, and being in the south, I am by far no stranger to seeing a gun from time-to-time, but it is not appropriate for guns to be in a vulnerable area such as a college campus. There are already too many guns available to the public, and allowing them on an educational facility would greatly increase the likelihood of injury or death.
Alfonzo once again claimed that Commerce Clause which is basically where Congress is granted separate power, which Alfonzo thought was a direct violation of the Constitution Of The Unites States. The Fifth Circuit overturned the original conviction by stating the charges and the laws are past the powers of the Congress and in response to that the U.S. government then appealed to the Supreme court. The reason they did this was so the Commerce Laws could stay in effect. The Governments argument was the possession of a firearm on or within a school facility would likely be to commit a act of violence which would effect the school and how it is run and also the well being of the population, and because of all this the government believe that the commerce clause should be upheld. In
The experience is different for each and every person depending on his or her own diligence and work ethic. A great question that comes to mind regarding law school and the commitment that it requires that can be debated would be: Is law school meant to dehumanize the students in order to divide the weak from the resilient or is it simply a heroic journey of determination and overcoming obstacles? Having watched only the first scene in Kingsfield’s contract law class one would jump to conclusion that dehumanization and humiliation are qualities quite prevalent. Kingsfield chose Hart to recite the material facts of the Hawkins Vs. McGee case, which Hart did not know was a required read for the first class. Kingsfield recites the facts for him but then picks Hart to determine the damages appropriate for the doctor’s actions.
Armed Security in Schools “Why ban one and not the other? And once you start banning semiautomatics, where do you stop?” (Milloy) Society believes the ban of guns is going to stop the violence in America, while most people don’t realize that by banning firearms, we as a society will only increase the power of the criminal over law abiding citizens. The man at the Sandy Hook Elementary School could have been avoid by many ways such as the mother not owning a gun knowing her son had a mental illness, or keeping a tighter lock on the gun in a safe that only she would have access too, finally one of the best ideas to be suggested is the proposal of having armed security guards in school. I believe that we should have armed security in our schools to protect our children by having an armed security as deterrents, President Children get secret service agents yet our children have nothing, finally properly trained and certified school staff to carry firearm. Having an armed security guard or peace officers at our school alone will act as a deterrent towards violent criminals from thinking about going to the school and committing a shooting.
I have the authority to search a student’s bag if I believe that contraband is contained inside. However, I still much report it. If I was to let the student go on about their day knowing that they can get away with having drugs or a weapon I am putting the entire student body, faculty and staff in jeopardy. I am also putting my career on the line by not reporting it. To infringe on a student’s rights for the sake of the learning environment sometimes cannot be avoided.
What is changing are the people involved and the environment where these freedoms are being questioned. In the essay Schools fail free speech 101, it is my observation that the author takes the position that the constitutional rights of students in American schools are being denied by teachers, principals, and administrators. The author uses many examples of these censorships of students as premises to support his conclusion (2007). In the article, the author reports about a Cincinnati high school student magazine that included a “mildly critical” article about the schools football team and the principal ordered the article be torn out of the magazine before it was distributed (Schools fail, 2007). I feel this is a strong premise to support the conclusion that administrators censor what students write in their publications.