By Nadia Garabedian

Finding one’s true individuality emerges from their own values and beliefs, emphasizing the importance of college students finding who they are even under social pressure. This idea allows for the existence of “safe spaces” and the importance of exercising one’s freedom of speech. Yet, one’s free speech seems to only be protected and safe when their beliefs mirror a certain agenda. Especially in academia, the eradication of free speech for everyone regardless of opinion, and the elimination of civil discourse is more prevalent in our society today. Most students and professors encourage the idea of accommodating one's differences, yet they are not afraid to publicly put down opinions that do not align with their own. When an opinion surpasses anything they do not approve of, it becomes a cause for ridicule. This antagonizing political environment has morphed into hostility directly within the college classroom through rallying unanimous support for the mockery of opposing political beliefs and religious values. This not only transcends lighthearted banter, but entirely contradicts the perpetual rhetoric of letting one’s beliefs shape who they are as individuals. The outward support not only motivates professors’ assumptions that every student has the same values, but it also leads to students supporting the ridicule of minority beliefs and leads to an unsafe environment for students with those opinions. 

The issue arising in society today is the lack of individual thought, through which college students witness a cause on social media that they believe if they support and protest for will give them a purpose, even if they do not understand what they are supporting. This leads to a lack of individual self-reflection of values and therefore a mass support of popular beliefs just because it is the “cool” thing to do. Many students engage in protests for a cause that when asked they can not even explain or support evidentially. The vast majority of students and professors espouse certain commonalities, including the lack of ability to engage in civil discourse and an aspect of hate for those with different opinions. Regardless of opinions, the problem is not that students and professors tend to align with a certain agenda. The real issue is the fact that these views are infiltrating within the confines of educational spaces and leaving no room for diverse thoughts. Using lecture slides as a vehicle for political propaganda by making false claims about political candidates and mocking religious stereotypes as a means to gain support for their own agenda, as well as using time at the podium to antagonize students with differing values is not how professors should be exercising their authority. They do not see the classroom as an environment for education because they can never teach a subject impartially, but constantly feel the need to embed how horrendous opposing views are and eradicate any possibility of civil discourse within their lectures.

Moreover, most college students have chosen to pursue higher education, under the pretense that classes will educate and teach them something that will benefit them for their futures. To be fair, there are professors that truly teach the subject material at hand and remain impartial. However, this is not true for all classes. Although some may say that professors are merely exercising their freedom of speech within the classroom, there is a line between espousing one’s free speech and purposefully mocking others’ free speech. No one makes political stereotypes aimed towards the people with the popular beliefs, however, it is acceptable when professors choose to poke fun at stereotypes of minority opinions. This does not make any sense, yet it is those that claim to accept people for who they are that are the first to put a student down because they do not buy into their rhetoric. 

Furthermore, professors claim that their classrooms are ”safe spaces,” yet the act of them mocking a belief alludes to the idea that it is only “safe” for those that agree with the public. Mocking presidential candidates and stereotypes of religious beliefs creates an environment of hostility. Putting down religions for the sake of a humorous joke is the antithesis of a safe space. Therefore, students do not feel safe to speak out about their beliefs because it is blatantly derided and supported by crowds of laughter and nodding heads. Ironically, those who espouse the idea of a “safe space” refuse to acknowledge that students with differing views have the right to feel safe, as well. The mere idea of these spaces implies safety, yet throughout campus it is far from safe to those with certain beliefs. Professors usually preface class time with the announcement that it is a safe space, a place where ideas will encourage class discussion. However, this is only the case for certain groups with a particular view, considering the instant a less popular opinion is brought up it becomes “threatening” and “harmful.” 

It is a professor's responsibility to educate, not indoctrinate. Yet, the mere assumption of political beliefs as facts situates a barrier between free speech and indoctrination. There is no room for civil discourse in the classroom because making a claim about a particular opinion and expecting unanimous support makes it appear as the correct and only way of thinking, and eliminates any possibility for a differing opinion.

Although some might say that college students only want to support diversity and inclusivity, the fundamental idea that opposing beliefs are silenced leads to the eradication of intellectual diversity and civil discourse. When students with diverse opinions can not express their values in class, there is no existence of intellectual diversity and inclusivity, only the uniformity of beliefs. Inclusivity is selective, within the confines of liberal universities, since an individual is only included when they perpetuate the same rhetoric as everyone else. 

The powerful thing about American society is that people with differing backgrounds and beliefs are still able to function together properly. Exercising one’s first amendment of free speech is what makes our society different from others. However, people refuse to acknowledge that finding value in discussing disagreements is normal and a part of humanity. Values and beliefs are shaped through individuals’ different experiences and life circumstances, inevitably leading to a multitude of different ideas. However, many students and professors feel threatened by disagreements because they are incapable of defending certain causes that they only choose to support because it is the popular thing to do. Instead of pushing an agenda down everyone’s throat and mocking certain beliefs, those in academia should practice their own beliefs and find beauty in diversity. They should find out why someone feels the way they do. Ask them what life experiences have led them to their political or religious beliefs. These discussions are meaningful because they not only allow for everyone to feel safe and heard regardless of opinion, but they also allow for others to see other perspectives and ultimately understand the true meaning behind the freedom of speech. 

This Op-ed reflects the views and opinions of the writer, not Westwood Review as a whole.