Others say that it is unfair to subjugate people to encountering unnecessary hatred. They say that the First Amendment was meant to provoke enlightening discussion whereas hate speech only terminates it. This is not so or else there would be no debate on speech regulation.
When hate speech is brought up, people either praise it, or criticize and condemn it. There are always two sides to every topic of discussion. The size of one side compared to the other is irrelevant. All that matters are the ideas brought into discussion and the ability of both sides to see each other's viewpoints. This, however, is idealistic. In the real world, people have a tendency to be adamant on a position, so it takes much convincing to make them change their stance. Strom Thurmond, the epitome of racism in the era of the civil rights movement, had his views change over time. This signifies that there is hope everyone to take what they see, analyze it, and come to reasonable conclusion. It did not take speech regulation to change Strom Thurmond, just time. If colleges can begin to educate its students of intolerance, then they will become tolerant, or more enlightened if they are already so. Speech codes are merely a quick fix to the overall problem: racism and intolerance.
With great freedom, comes great responsibility. Although we are given the right to speak whatever is on our minds, it is necessary to take what we say with responsibility. In the classroom, it is good to have discussions and when they start to get out of hand, it is the teacher's job to calm the class down before continuing. A teacher who instigates but does not control a discussion is not worthy of holding their position.
.
Ken Hearlson was a professor at Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa. He was known around campus for his popular discussions and thus many students signed up for his classes. Hearlson used to be a liberal but changed his ideals along with his personality.
