resolved. public colleges and universites in the United states ought not restrict free speech.

To begin I would like to point out my opponents dropped arguments. all of them. all of my arguments have been dropped. however, since my opponent appears to be an inexperienced debater I shall grant some leeway and allow her to attack my contentions despite the fact that they were dropped. now moving on to attack my opponents case my opponent has stated that colleges should restrict free speech on the basis that people need to watch what they say because if you tell someone to kill themselves and they do it, we would all feel bad. however, psychological studies that show a correlation between verbal abuse from strangers on campuses and psychological harm are fundamentally flawed. according to MCLA.edu the studies that have led many to believe that verbal insults from strangers can cause harm are methodologically flawed and are contrasted by more valid studies which show no correlation between psychological harm and verbal abuse from strangers. One such study was conducted by Timothy Jay at the Massachusetts college of the liberal arts which also found no such correlation. Which nullifies the psychological studies that would support that verbal abuse can cause harm. If the student commits suicide over this, they are likely suffering from major depressive disorder and would benefit more from receiving psychological help rather than having the Civil liberties of other students trampled upon by the university. The ability of a university to endorse two contradictory policies can perhaps be explained as simple hypocrisy. Indeed, this does appear to be part of the answer on many campuses, where administrators have agendas far removed from the common pursuit of knowledge. Whether hypocritical or sincere, however, the drafters of these codes feel a need to justify the seemingly contradictory goals of free speech and free inquiry, on the one hand, and limitations on speech to achieve equal access to educational opportunity, on the other. Reconciliation of these opposing concepts is achieved primarily by Marcusean logic. The attempt to balance the right of free speech with the "right" to be free from harassment deeply reflects Marcuse's notion of "freedom" and "tolerance." It is a fundamentally Marcusean idea that tolerance must be redefined to advance a positive social and moral agenda. The codes express a deep commitment to freedom of speech and inquiry, but when they express an equal commitment to a group member's right to be free from verbal harassment, it leads, in the name of positive freedom, to the wholesale banning not only of speech and other traditional modes of expression but even of looks, body language, and, in some cases, laughter. It leads, in short, to progressive intolerance. A window into the thinking of some speech code crafters is found at Stanford University. The initial draft of Stanford's code was strongly influenced by professor Thomas Grey of the law school, who has posited that, under certain circumstances, constitutional commitments to freedom of expression, and to civil liberties in general, conflict with the nation's commitment to providing equal access to educational opportunities, and to civil rights in general. In a 1991 article in the HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY, Grey expresses discomfort at the collision but considers the conflict "inescapable." In his view, the tension between academic freedom and equal educational opportunity arises from an inherent conflict between civil liberties and civil rights, between liberty and social equality. This premise is problematic. Freedom of speech is a "liberty interest," and it deals solely with an individual's ability to express himself or herself as he or she desires. In contrast, civil rights legislation is largely protective and egalitarian, expressing the broader societal concern with how citizens are faring in comparison to other citizens. Put another way, the First Amendment protects the individual from the oppressive exercise of government power, whereas civil rights jurisprudence offers the individual recourse to the government for assistance in obtaining the necessary tools and opportunities to reap the benefits of equal participation in economic, social, and cultural life. I would also like to offer a few truths into the round. The first truth is that Citizens can"t simply ignore their beliefs and their conscience simply because the university would like to say otherwise The second truth is that the university cannot morally force students to suffer under the oppression of being forced into silence by a dominating institution. The third truth is that free speech allows all people to enter the democratic sphere and influence legislative and judicial decisions. The fourth truth is that the dissenting individual has a place and should not be silenced for the sake of peace and social unity. For when a democracy on the surface agrees with itself in all things, that democracy has assuredly failed. The fifth truth is that even though an individual could use his right to free speech to spread say, racist propaganda; this does not mean that free speech itself is immoral. I hold that society should be heavily individualistic in this regard, holding everyone responsible for their individual actions rather than holding free speech as a collective accountable for the actions of the individual. The sixth truth is that free speech is a check upon society for example the free speech of institutions such as the IWW lead to the 40 hour work week and other workers benefits, the women"s suffrage movement used it to gain the vote. The seventh truth is that simply because the purpose of free speech is to improve society and sometimes fails in that goal does not make it unjustified or immoral. Free speech can sometimes be the only option if the authorities are unresponsive to your plight or the issue at hand sufficiently egregious. It is also important to recognize the fallibility of the majority. Simply because the majority of people believe one thing does not make it wrong to believe something else. And if the majority of people believe one thing on campus, that is not sufficient reason to bar the minority from speaking what they believe despite the offence taken by the majority.