Resolved: Public colleges in the U.S. ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech

I negate the resolution, Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. To provide clarity for the round I offer the following definitions: Public Colleges and Universities- A university or college that is predominantly funded by public means through a national or subnational government. Ought- A moral duty or obligation Restrict- put a limit on; to keep under control. Any- used to indicate one or many Constitutionally Protected Speech- The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. My Value for the round will be Equality and is defined as, "the right of different groups of people to receive the same treatment, regardless of race, sex, religion, etc." My Value Criterion for the round is Rule Utilitarianism and is defined by, "an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good"the correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed." My First contention is that College students want to implement speech codes and restrictions. According to licensed clinical social worker, Melissa Cohen, "34% of college students report feeling depressed at least at one point within the last 90 days." Brian Mullen, Ph.D., and Joshua M. Smyth, Ph.D. state, "The correlation between hate speech and suicide rates remains constant." Timothy Jay from Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts states, "Legal scholars advance a harm thesis, that offensive utterances harm people the same way that physical blows do" Offensive words comprise, but are not limited to, categories of obscenity, indecency, profanity, racial insults, taboos, and scatology. Opposing views raise the question: When do offensive words harm people?" Under further research, it concluded that the offensive words included hate speech." Depression and suicide remain constant with hate speech. Also, according to, Catherine Rampell from, "The Washington Post," "About 71% of [college] freshmen surveyed in the fall said they agree with the statement that "colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech on campus."" That more than half of college freshmen who want restrictions. "[Also,] student groups from at least 76 schools have now issued their own suggestions"[many of which] involved speech codes." Heather Sells, from "CBN News," states, "At Yale, the University of Missouri, and elsewhere students are increasingly concerned about what they consider offensive. [Students are] calling for more rules to limit what students can say." Since the majority of the students want restrictions and speech codes, it relates directly back to my value criterion. My Second contention is that restrictions decrease racial discrimination. Not only do students want restrictions, but they also help with the problem of racism. Scott Jaschik, from "Inside Higher Education" tells of multiple incidents, in which could have been resolved if speech codes were implemented at that time. At Ohio University, they created a "free speech" wall, where students could write whatever they wanted except hate speech. However, racist comments, bullying, and many other things where written on the wall. At the State University of New York at Brockport, the words "African Americans deserved to die" except it used more explicit language, was written on a public whiteboard in a dormitory that houses many minority students. At Eastern Michigan University, posters with the letters KKK and racial slurs were found on several buildings. Speech codes help promote equality for all, regardless of race. I will now move on to attacking my opponent's case My opponent uses the value of justice, and the dictionary defines it as, "the quality of being just" however this flows better to the negative side since minorities are being harmed through verbal abuse. If public colleges restrict speech than it will only worsen the bullying. As I stated earlier, " offensive utterances harm people the same way that physical blows do." Meaning for the minorities-sake, the U.S. simply cannot drop speech codes. My opponent uses the value criterion of abiding by the U.S. constitution, however the constitution is outdated. According to Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell from, "Hoover Institution", "the ultimate problem is the Constitution itself. The founders crafted a government 225 years ago for a simple agrarian society of just four million people, some 700,000 of whom were slaves." The constitution was made in a time which had a different culture. Now, I'm not stating that we should totally obliterate free speech as a whole, but amend the constitution to save those in public colleges whom are committing suicide due to hate speech. My opponent's first contention is the oppression of minorities, however as I have stated earlier that these minorities are being verbally abused through the practice of total free speech on college campuses. There was an instance in which a college student, Tyler Clementi, was marginalized for his sexuality because of free speech; he later had committed suicide. Free speech will only worsen the current oppression of minorities. My opponent's second contention is along the lines of there's nothing special in colleges that allow them to limit speech. However, there are problems on colleges with free speech, that need to be fixed. I stated earlier that, "At Yale, the University of Missouri, and elsewhere students are increasingly concerned about what they consider offensive. [Students are] calling for more rules to limit what students can say." Meaning that it give colleges the right to limit speech if it benefits the campus as a whole. Moving on, my opponent's final contention is, "Suppressing speech on college campus means that student"s rights are being violated and their 1st amendment is being violated", however, as I state again that the constitution is outdated and needs to be amended. The culture and society over 200 years ago is different than it is today. Thank you. Sources: http://www.learnpsychology.org... http://www.news-medical.net... https://www.mcla.edu... https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.cbn.com... https://www.insidehighered.com... http://www.hoover.org...