good and bad speech

Ace the Presentation

What Are The Differences Between A Good and A Bad Speech? 

For that reason, it’s important that you know the difference between a good and a bad speech . Good and bad speeches differ from each other in their essence. The characteristics that make a speech considered good are the same lacking in what we consider a bad speech. Let’s look deep into it!

11 Qualities of A Good Speech  

—audience centered..

By definition, a speech is a form of discourse directed at a group of people, the audience. For that reason, a good speech honors that definition and has the audience at the center of it.

Directing a speech at the audience means studying the audience before thinking about the speech, being in touch with the main characteristics of the audience, as those largely influence the way they will take the speech.

A speech should have a defined and clearly stated topic and be conducted in clear and understandable language.  

Anyone in your audience should be able to understand it and, since the audience is mostly diverse, the least you can do to help them is use simple and clear terms. 

Avoid using “hmm” or any other ambiguous terms that might cause confusion or obstruct everyone’s understanding.

—Delivered With Confidence.

Your audience wants to know that they can rely on what you’re saying and on you. Lack of confidence ruins the process of trust-building. 

One doesn’t need to state that they are shy; if you stand in a curved posture, with your arms awkwardly placed or with your gaze at the floor, rather than on the people, the audience will catch onto your awkwardness, and that might cause discomfort among them.

And although shyness isn’t a crime,  if you genuinely want to give good speeches,  you need to become a confident speaker.

 How To Become A Confident Speaker: 

My best advice is: start by practicing a lot. Some of the most confident speakers go as far as taking diction lessons to build their confidence. If that’s what it takes for you to be at their level, do it. 

Something that also helps when practicing is recording yourself while you give a speech, so you can see firsthand what your weaknesses and strong points are. You can also have a friend watch you give a speech, so they can help point them out as well. 

Investigate more about confidence and find the methods that work for you to improve it.  

Don’t try to copy someone else’s style of speaking , instead find your own and develop it without giving too much thought to what others think of it. Even if it’s different, if you feel confident speaking in that style, you’re on the right track.

—Supported By Facts. 

A good speech isn’t just some rambling of a topic made up of the speaker’s imagination.

Although there’s nothing wrong with the speaker exploring an idea or concept that he has thought about, a speech backed up by facts is much more credible and therefore accepted by the audience. 

For that reason, using studies, theories, and statistics to support a speech is in the speaker’s best interest if he wants to give a good one.

—Supported By Visuals or Infographics. 

Besides giving a more professional look to your speech, infographics like flyers, for example, help guide the audience during the speech and guarantee that they retain the key points of your speech. 

A speech needs to have just the right speed to make sure that people understand what is being said, yet they don’t get bored of it all because of how long it took. 

A good speech is neither too fast nor too slow but paced instead.

—Delivered In An Engaging Way.

Like I’ve mentioned before, a clear speech that bores the audience is still not a good enough speech. If the point of the speech is to have the audience’s interest, a good speech should also consider the engagement factor. 

A good speech has humor and has interaction between the audience and the speaker, usually something of an informal nature that makes them feel a closer bond to the speaker without disregarding the context, like a game or a live quiz, for example. 

—Delivered With Regulated Emotions.

—including good body language..

Good body language shows the speaker’s confidence and communicates that he knows what he is doing.

A speech with no regard for body language has a high risk of being awkward and making the audience feel uncomfortable. And that is a recipe for disaster, regardless of how well placed the grammar is. 

—Well Structured. 

A good speech follows a structure that keeps it as objective and straightforward as possible. That structure should have a three parts introduction paragraph (to give people an idea of what to expect from the speech or guide them on what to focus on), the development (where all the main information usually is at), and a “banger” conclusion (memorable enough to keep in their minds the main points of the speech). 

—Leaving Room For The Audience’s Participation. 

Like I’ve been saying through the article, the audience is a crucial factor when making a speech. A good speech is not only designed for the audience but also accommodates their opinions, even if just at the end of it, whether through a  Q&A or even through a live survey. 

Highly Recommended Next Articles to Look At

What Makes A Bad Public Speaker? Top 10 Worst Traits To Avoid

Want to Stand Out? 15 Key Tips for an Awesome Presentation

How to Become a Confident Public Speaker – 6 Tips

Ever wondered what it feels like to command a room filled with people just with the way you speak? How to Become a Confident Public Speaker ? No, it’s not a gift (in case you are wondering); rather, it takes practice and time for you to master the art of public speaking. This simply means…

11 Characteristics of A Bad Speech: 

The first mistake made in all bad speeches is not clarifying who it’s directed to. A speech without a clear receptor and with a vague target cannot be mindful of the audience’s preferences and therefore has a high potential of being considered bad by them. 

The use of complex language and terms, the use of a bad tone (either too low or too high or too awkward), or even the use of words that don’t convey any real meaning and that don’t add anything to the speech are all things that make a speech bad. 

—Lacking Confidence. 

If the speaker is too nervous during the speech and his body language doesn’t align with the speech because he has a bad posture or even bad manners, the speech automatically becomes bad, regardless of how well structured the actual text of the speech is.

Too much nervousness is a sign of unsureness, and people have a hard time trusting those who seem unsure of themselves or whatever they are doing.

—Unprepared.

Bad speeches usually take place when people are unprepared for them. Being unprepared ranges from anything like not having a structure, not having a written down version of the speech (or at least a written down list of the main topics) to not having the speech memorized, as that usually results in a waste of time and resources because the speech doesn’t follow through.

Not having proper knowledge of the subject is also a sign of being unprepared, and in this case, the best thing to do is to study the subject before giving the speech. 

—Based on Suppositions or Personal Opinions. 

Nobody wants to sit (sometimes) hours of their life through a speech that has no actual facts in it or supporting it. Like I’ve said before, although personal opinions with some proven knowledge are acceptable, a speech solely based on subjective opinion (and nothing else) is usually bad as it most likely doesn’t add to the listeners’ lives.

—With No Additional Info or Aid.

A speech that doesn’t prioritize the audience’s fundamental understanding of it by not providing any aid or supporting information on the speech in the form of flyers or infographics is bad. 

How will the audience follow the speech and follow what is being said if they have no guidance? They more likely will miss valuable information from the speech because staying focused through someone talking isn’t always easy. 

—Too Fast or Too Slow. 

I’ve said before that a speech that’s too fast to be understood or too slow, to the point of boring the listeners, is bad. 

—Boring Deliverance. 

A speech that isn’t interactive, is too serious and strict, and doesn’t include any moments where people can relax for a second and laugh or play most likely tires the audience and is therefore bad. 

—Overzealous Speech. 

People usually don’t know how to process and deal with polarizing displays of emotions. Most people feel awkward about it and would rather not deal with them. 

For that reason, a tendency of overzealousness can ruin a speech. 

—Too Focused on The Deliverance but Lacking Content.

Although the deliverance is essential, a speech that’s only focused on it, to the point of disregarding the importance of good and quality content and structure, is generally bad as nothing really can be retained from it. 

Good quality content isn’t only well-studied content but also content that is original (not copied from anybody) and that is within the proper context of the speech

—Exclusive. 

Although the point of the speech is having someone talk to a group of listeners, those listeners want to feel included in the speech, either by a clear demonstration of thought about the audience or through their actual participation in the speech. A speech that fails to do that is bad.

Another good way to learn is by example. For that reason I’ve gathered a few examples of what to do and what not to do when giving a speech. 

Examples of Famous Good Speeches:

 A couple of famous good speeches that you should read and learn from are: 

—Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. 

It’s known as one of the best speeches ever made, for how well it ticked all the boxes of a good speech’s list of requirements. 

—Sojourner Truth’s 1851 “Ain’t I A Woman?” speech. 

It’s a public appeal for equal rights for women and men that also exemplifies the qualities of a good speech and its power.

Examples of Famous Bad Speeches: 

Some of the worst speeches that are continuously used as examples of what not to do are: 

—Melania Trump’s 2016 Republican National Convention Speech. 

It caused controversy because it was too similar to Michelle Obama’s speech, to the point where it’s hard to believe the similarities are a coincidence and not plagiarism. 

— The speech of the American politician who screamed while rallying votes . 

Probably one of the most used examples. It’s a great depiction of the effects of no preparation in the sense of a disregard for the amount of passion put in a speech, overzealousness, and a great lack of social and self-awareness.

Another great way to learn about speeches is through books.

Books To Improve Public Speaking:

A list of good books about public speaking that will help improve your speech skills: 

— The Quick & Easy Way To Effective Speaking , a self-help book by the American lecturer and bestselling writer Dale Carnigie, that takes you, step by step, on a journey to great public speaking.

— Talk Like TED , a book by Carmine Gallo, a guide to public speaking based on scientific analysis of hundreds of famous TED talks. 

Further Readings (and Viewings)

What is the difference between a good speaker and a bad speaker?. BOARDGAMES TIPS 

Good Presentation VS Bad Presentation

Similar Posts

10 Best Tips on how to become a Public Speaker

I today’s post, I will be sharing the very best tips to turn you into a remarkable speaker. But, before I delve into the nitty grits of how to become a public speaker, and a great one at that, I would like to take you to first understand what is public speaking, how you can…

Business Presentation: 21 Tips For A Persuasive Business Speech

When it comes to having a persuasive and convincing business presentation, it goes way beyond just having a bunch of colorful slides.  So, whether your business presentation is for prospective clients or board members of an organization, what matters most is ensuring that your presentation is impressive and convincing.  In this article, we shall be…

3 KEY Things For Delivering a Successful Speech

Have you ever had to give a speech and have no idea how to direct their thoughts or start talking? In this article, we will discuss in a straightforward way how to work the oratory to develop the ability to speak well with different audiences, arousing their attention, respect, and provoking reflections. Speeches are moments…

Explanatory Speech Examples: 7 Steps to an Effective Speech

We have all had to do some explaining at one point or the other. Maybe you were trying to explain a concept to a friend or trying to explain the benefits of a product to potential customers, it all counts as explanatory speech. Of course, there are also examples in corporate settings, you may be…

Group Presentations: 7 Tips for Presenting With a Group

Presenting as a team is a complex exercise that requires diplomacy, respect, and many human qualities. A group team is composed of individuals where each one has a character and history. The role of the leader within it is decisive. Each team member must feel in their place and work not only for their own…

The Purpose of Speech Explained

If you ever find it unnecessary, out of fashion, dull, or even have no idea what speeches are for, this article is undoubtedly for you. With each word of this article, you will understand the real purpose of the speeches, how they arose, and what usefulness they bring to our day-to-day lives. What is a…

Speech Analysis | Storytelling

15 bad speeches we can learn from.

Written by Kai Xin Koh

If you’ve been an avid reader of our blog and generally presentation content on the internet, you’ll likely have been exposed to golden standards of presenting. (Think Steve Jobs) But how often have you encountered bad speeches that you can learn to avoid? Part of being a great public speaker or presenter is knowing what NOT to do so you can safeguard your reputation and speech.

Here are 15 bad speech examples for you to learn from:

Michael Bay quits Samsung

Have you ever forgotten your script, or perhaps experienced a faulty projector while presenting? Well, Michael Bay sure did. At the Samsung CES press conference in 2014, he failed to promote the new Samsung curved TV. After an error with the teleprompter, he apologized and walked off the stage, leaving the audience speechless and confused.

To avoid facing an awkward situation, pay close attention to certain key messages while practising. It will guide you through the presentation and help you recall the points, which could buy you some time to sort your cues.

Questioning Round: Miss Teen USA

In the Miss Teen USA 2007 question and answer round, Caitlin Upton struggled to answer her question: “Recent polls have shown that ⅕ of Americans can’t locate the US on a world map, why do you think this is?” She stumbled through her 30 seconds with an answer that barely made any sense.

You may come across some difficult questions when doing a Q&A session after a presentation. The best way you can deal with an unfamiliar question is to get back to the person after finding the answer. Always think through before replying and if you are unclear, ask them to repeat, or explain their question further. Failing to do so can lead to dire consequences on stage (usually an embarrassing time) if you rush through the question.

Emmy Awards 2013

The chances of winning an Emmy Award is probably one in a million, and award winners typically thank their families, producers and so on. However, all Merritt Wever had to say was “thank you so much. okay, I got to go. Bye.” The audience was baffled at the situation.

One thing that we can definitely learn from this is to have a prepared speech if you know you are being nominated. It may come off as rude if you don’t do so as you will leave the audience hanging, expectant of a thank you speech.

Melania Trump’s Republican National Convention Speech

Melania Trump’s speech at the Republican National Convention 2016 caused a huge controversy and uproar. Many observers were able to tell that her words were extremely similar to former First Lady Michelle Obama’s previous speech.

There may be days when you are inspired by others, and decide to put their speeches into yours. Do give the owners credit for it, which simply be done by mentioning these phrases, “quoted by”,”mention by” or “from”.

Theresa May’s Calamitous Conference Speech

This may be one of the most catastrophic speeches of all. The conference was to address and reassure her party’s political members about Brexit and Britain’s future. Amongst this seriousness, a comedian rudely disrupts her by handing over a resignation form and props behind were falling apart. Besides that, she was coughing endlessly into the mic, trying to proceed with the speech.

Props to her for trying to keep things together after an interruption, but coughing into the mic may seem unprofessional and unhygienic. One way to tackle these bad speeches is to turn away from the mic while coughing, though it would be best to hold it in. If you are losing your voice, do clear your throat first before speaking into the mic.

Santa Cruz City Council

One way of improving your city is to have people volunteer their ideas. Here is an example of a poorly executed speech with little structure and redundant hand gestures. It is natural to feel anxious when presenting in front of people with authority, however, it is important to keep your cool and practice before a speech.

A method to counter such anxiety is to have a list of things to be covered according to the flow of the speech. Having a specific structure helps both you and your audience understand the thought process better. Another way you can go about doing it is by practising in front of the mirror, which helps to boost your confidence and eliminate bad fidgeting habits.

Politician Rallying Votes

Being passionate and believing in yourself is important when you’re trying to convince people. Nevertheless, being overly zealous could potentially scare your audience, harming your chances to be voted. Looking at the video, you can probably tell that yelling makes it hard to hear your speech, and the tone of your speech affects the way your audience reacts.

One way to prevent this is to have your family members or colleagues listen to your speech beforehand. Have them pinpoint out specific mistakes such as voice projection, posture, and tone . Through this method, you will have a sense of what your audience will feel, and improve to make your speech better.

Pitching for 1million Pounds on Dragons’ Den

Asking for and receiving a million pounds is no easy task. Bathomatic failed to secure a deal with any of the dragons. In his pitch, he mentioned the problem, the solution and how he came up with this idea, however, there was something missing. He did not mention any benefit statement or justification for a large amount of money.

During a pitch, it is important to address your audience’s concerns. Questions such as “why should they invest in you?”, “what can you bring to the table for them?” can guide you in making a much more persuasive speech.

Common Mistakes Made

Here is a group of 4 students attempting to do a presentation on Apple. Throughout the video, we spotted numerous errors commonly made by presenters. Here are 5 mistakes which you should take note of:

1. Reading off the slides with your back facing the audience This is where cue cards come into play. If you are having a hard time remembering your script and need pointers to remind you, cue cards are a good alternative to solve that. They prevent you from back facing the audience and increases the engagement rate, but remember not to rely on them for the entire presentation!

2. Redundant animation sounds Just like sound effects in movies, they’re used to emphasize certain motions. Excessive use of this defeats the purpose and may be seen as annoying. Try to avoid using sound effects during a serious presentation as it destroys the atmosphere of a meeting or a pitch.

3. Teammates standing around This could be one of the toughest problems that group presenters encounter during a presentation. Teammates who are not presenting maybe fidgeting or look disinterested, which could distract your audience. In order to stop it from happening, have your team members nod in agreement to what you have to say. However, if they’re not involved, get them to join your audience instead.

4. Long paragraphs of information Based on a study done on 439 people by Dave Paradi, more than half felt annoyed when full sentences are used in Powerpoint. The solution to this is to break down sentences into shorter points, and every slide should only have one message. For example, if you are presenting a new product, separate the functions into different slides. This aids your audience in understanding and gives them a clear focused message.

5. Chewing on sweets/gums Take a look at the boy standing at the far right. Do you notice something?

He has been chewing on a gum since the start of the presentation all the way until the end!

While you’re enjoying your gum, others may see it as ill-mannered. Avoid eating any candies, chocolate, and gum right before your presentation. Chewing on something while presenting will not only be seen as disrespectful, but it will harm your voice projection as well. The best is to keep away from such sweet treats until the end of the presentation.

Nervous Breakdown During Business Presentation

This is a scene from Billable Hours, where Robin suffered a stage fright presenting in front of her peers. Despite having cue cards, she struggled to hold her presentation together.

The greatest takeaway here is to always practice your script beforehand. Practicing helps you retain and generate a flow of key messages. While practising, generate a structure that is easy for you to remember when you’re presenting. It makes you less dependent on cue cards and increases your chances of having eye contact with your audience.

Science Communication Workshop Presentation

Here is a spoof of a science communication workshop presented by Dr Fisher-Kat. Besides the noticeable clutter of words and pictures on a single slide, she was rambling on about the different scientific terms. At 2:10, a lady asked a question, however, she received an insulting reply.

When you’re presenting to people, especially a general audience, it is best to keep things simple. Removing and simplifying terminology will help your audience in understanding. If such terms are needed, explain them in layman terms.

Dealing with questions can be difficult, especially when you’re given a time limit. Using “Can I get back to you later?”, helps you kill two birds with one stone. You will be able to proceed on with your presentation while giving your audience a peace of mind that they will be answered. You can have a short chit-chat with the person after the presentation or simply drop them an email.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIPFrZY–30

Pitching Without Prepared Product

Whether it is pitching to your customers or investors, the most crucial parts are your services and products. But what happens when one fails to work? In this episode of Dragon Dens, an aspiring entrepreneur attempts to demonstrate his service. However, it did not work in his favour, leaving the dragons uninterested and speechless.

The biggest turn off for the investors is when you’re pitching something that does not work. To prevent this from happening, always do checks before going up on stage to do your grand pitch. Similarly, if your pitch requires help from others, remember to remind them of it. Being prepared definitely saves you from embarrassing situations.

Forgetting Your Script

There are two contrasting sides of this presentation, one being an engaging presentation, the other being a really confusing one. We also noticed that he forgot his script for a second in the middle of the presentation. How can we prevent ourselves from being seen as unprepared and confusing?

One way to go about doing this is by structuring your presentation. Stating the purpose of your presentation at the start would definitely help your audience understand better. This can be followed up with points supporting your key messages, and a summary of your main points. A presentation is just like writing an essay, there has to be a logical flow in order for your audience to understand better.

Sean Penn’s 2004 Oscar Speech – For Um-ing Too Much

A speech with flow often comes with tons of practice, but what happens if it is an impromptu speech? How do we give a speech without pausing for too long?

Impromptu speeches may be one of the hardest things to pull off. Besides thinking on your feet, you will have to speak in front of an audience with professionalism. However, these mistakes may seem minute when you’re fully focused on your presentation.

In this example, Sean seems to pull off his thank you speech pretty well except the countless number of times when he paused with an “um”. Though it is said subconsciously, it can make your speech choppy.

One method to avoid excessive pauses is to prep beforehand. You might want to know the background of the situation better before heading up to the stage. This way, you will have a rough idea of what needs to be covered when you’re on the stage.

For example, you will need to give an impromptu speech about your product to a group of investors. You can structure it by starting off with an introduction of yourself and your product, followed by benefits and lastly, sales and thank you. With a rough outline in mind, it could save some awkward pauses on stage and it might eventually impress the investors too.

IABC 2012 World Conference in Chicago

Buzzwords used in corporations around the world were collected and presented by Gerard Braud as an example of what no employee wants a CEO speech to sound like.

Simplifying terms used in your speech helps your audience to digest your content much easier as compared to the different unheard terminologies. When presenting to a general crowd, it is essential to understand that they might not entirely think the same way as you do.

One way to avoid miscommunication and confusion is to think in the audience’s perspective or get your family and friends to listen to you. If they don’t get the message you’re trying to convey, there is a high chance that the actual crowd may not understand it as well. Edit the speech accordingly, practice and you’re good to go!

Were you cringing while watching some of those bad speeches? You’re not the only one. To avoid a similar situation happening during your next speech or sales presentation, follow these tips based on learnings from the bad speeches above:

• Understand your audience
• Structure your key messages in a logical flow
• Prepare and check your props beforehand
• Practice Practice Practice
• Be calm when you face unforeseen circumstances

Prepare for the worst and you’ll never fall victim to a technical, or memory fault.

Article Written By: Kai Xin Koh

You may also like….

Val Yap: Delivering Success Through Effective Communication

by Kai Xin Koh

Success is not dictated by the hard work of one person alone. A great leader is also a great story-teller because effective communication is the foundation of any successful organisation.

15 Pro Tips To Ace Your Keynote Presentation

by Shavinyaa Vijay

Keynote presentations can be terrifying for some of us. We fear messing up, looking bad on camera, forgetting our notes… The list of nightmares just...

The Ultimate Guide To Developing Initial Coin Offering Presentations

by Eugene Cheng

Working towards your first ICO (Initial Coin Offering) project can be a harrowing experience. Besides actually developing the technology that works...

Sign Up for Winning With Stories!

• First Name *
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

10 Tips for Improving Your Public Speaking Skills

Few are immune to the fear of public speaking. Marjorie North offers 10 tips for speakers to calm the nerves and deliverable memorable orations.

Marjorie North

Snakes? Fine. Flying? No problem. Public speaking? Yikes! Just thinking about public speaking — routinely described as one of the greatest (and most common) fears — can make your palms sweat. But there are many ways to tackle this anxiety and learn to deliver a memorable speech.

In part one of this series,  Mastering the Basics of Communication , I shared strategies to improve how you communicate. In part two, How to Communicate More Effectively in the Workplace , I examined how to apply these techniques as you interact with colleagues and supervisors in the workplace. For the third and final part of this series, I’m providing you with public speaking tips that will help reduce your anxiety, dispel myths, and improve your performance.

Here Are My 10 Tips for Public Speaking:

1. nervousness is normal. practice and prepare.

All people feel some physiological reactions like pounding hearts and trembling hands. Do not associate these feelings with the sense that you will perform poorly or make a fool of yourself. Some nerves are good. The adrenaline rush that makes you sweat also makes you more alert and ready to give your best performance.

The best way to overcome anxiety is to prepare, prepare, and prepare some more. Take the time to go over your notes several times. Once you have become comfortable with the material, practice — a lot. Videotape yourself, or get a friend to critique your performance.

Communication Strategies: Presenting with Impact

Search all Communication programs.

2. Know Your Audience. Your Speech Is About Them, Not You.

Before you begin to craft your message, consider who the message is intended for. Learn as much about your listeners as you can. This will help you determine your choice of words, level of information, organization pattern, and motivational statement.

3. Organize Your Material in the Most Effective Manner to Attain Your Purpose.

Create the framework for your speech. Write down the topic, general purpose, specific purpose, central idea, and main points. Make sure to grab the audience’s attention in the first 30 seconds.

4. Watch for Feedback and Adapt to It.

Keep the focus on the audience. Gauge their reactions, adjust your message, and stay flexible. Delivering a canned speech will guarantee that you lose the attention of or confuse even the most devoted listeners.

5. Let Your Personality Come Through.

Be yourself, don’t become a talking head — in any type of communication. You will establish better credibility if your personality shines through, and your audience will trust what you have to say if they can see you as a real person.

6. Use Humor, Tell Stories, and Use Effective Language.

Inject a funny anecdote in your presentation, and you will certainly grab your audience’s attention. Audiences generally like a personal touch in a speech. A story can provide that.

7. Don’t Read Unless You Have to. Work from an Outline.

Reading from a script or slide fractures the interpersonal connection. By maintaining eye contact with the audience, you keep the focus on yourself and your message. A brief outline can serve to jog your memory and keep you on task.

8. Use Your Voice and Hands Effectively. Omit Nervous Gestures.

Nonverbal communication carries most of the message. Good delivery does not call attention to itself, but instead conveys the speaker’s ideas clearly and without distraction.

9. Grab Attention at the Beginning, and Close with a Dynamic End.

Do you enjoy hearing a speech start with “Today I’m going to talk to you about X”? Most people don’t. Instead, use a startling statistic, an interesting anecdote, or concise quotation. Conclude your speech with a summary and a strong statement that your audience is sure to remember.

10. Use Audiovisual Aids Wisely.

Too many can break the direct connection to the audience, so use them sparingly. They should enhance or clarify your content, or capture and maintain your audience’s attention.

Practice Does Not Make Perfect

Good communication is never perfect, and nobody expects you to be perfect. However, putting in the requisite time to prepare will help you deliver a better speech. You may not be able to shake your nerves entirely, but you can learn to minimize them.

Find related Communication programs.

Browse all Professional & Executive Development programs.

About the Author

North is a consultant for political candidates, physicians, and lawyers, and runs a private practice specializing in public speaking, and executive communication skills. Previously, she was the clinical director in the department of speech and language pathology and audiology at Northeastern University.

Why Gender Equity in the Workplace is Good for Business

Research indicates a correlation between gender equity and organizational success, yet it also points to obstacles for women in leadership.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

The 8 Key Elements of Highly Effective Speech

…and why your words barely matter.

Posted July 10, 2012 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

I’d like you to take a moment to experience the following sentence, taken from a recent article exploring the nature of human consciousness: “Neuroplastic mechanisms relevant to the growing number of empirical studies of the capacity of directed attention and mental effort systematically alter brain function.”

Exciting? Hardly! In fact, most of the words you read barely register in your brain, and most of the words you speak barely register in the listener’s brain. In fact, research shows that words are the least important part of communication when you have face-to-face conversations with others. So before you utter another word to another person, memorize this list of the 8 key elements of highly effective speech:

• Gentle eye contact
• Kind facial expression
• Warm tone of voice
• Expressive hand and body gestures
• Relaxed disposition
• Slow speech rate
• The words themselves

Effective communication is based on trust, and if we don’t trust the speaker, we’re not going to listen to their words. Trust begins with eye contact because we need to see the person’s face to evaluate if they are being deceitful or not. In fact, when we are being watched, cooperation increases. [1] When we are not being watched, people tend to act more selfishly, with greater dishonesty. [2]

Gentle eye contact increases trustworthiness and encourages future cooperation, [3] and a happy gaze will increase emotional trust. [4] However, if we see the slightest bit of anger or fear on the speaker’s face, our trust will rapidly decrease. [5] But you can’t fake trustworthiness because the muscles around your mouth and eyes that reflect contentment and sincerity are involuntary. Solution: if you think about someone you love, or an event that brought you deep joy and satisfaction, a "Mona Lisa" smile will appear on your face and the muscles around your eyes will soften.

The tone of your voice is equally important when it comes to understanding what a person is really trying to say. If the facial expression expresses one emotion , but if the tone conveys a different one, neural dissonance takes place in the brain, causing the person confusion. [6] The result: trust erodes, suspicion increases, and cooperation decreases.

Researchers at the University of Amsterdam found that expressions of anger, contempt, disgust, fear, sadness, and surprise were better communicated through vocal tone than facial expression, whereas the face was more accurate for communicating expressions of joy, pride, and embarrassment . [7] And in business, a warm supportive voice is the sign of transformational leadership , generating more satisfaction, commitment, and cooperation between other members of the team. [8]

You can easily train your voice to convey more trust to others, and all you have to do is slow down and drop your pitch. This was tested at the University of Houston: when doctors reduced their speaking rate and pitch, especially when delivering bad news, the listener perceived them “as more caring and sympathetic.” [9] Harvard's Ted Kaptchuk also discovered that using a warm voice would double the healing power of a therapeutic treatment. [10]

If you want to express joy, your voice needs to become increasingly melodic, whereas sadness is spoken with a flat and monotonic voice. When we are angry, excited, or frightened, we raise the pitch and intensity of our voice, and there’s a lot of variability in both the speed and the tone. However, if the emotion is incongruent with the words you are using, it will create confusion for the listener. [11]

Gestures, and especially hand movements, are also important because they help orchestrate the language comprehension centers of your brain. [12] In fact, your brain needs to integrate both the sounds and body movements of the person who is speaking in order to accurately perceive what is meant. [13] From an evolutionary perspective, speech emerged from hand gestures and they both originate the same language area of the brain. [14] If our words and gestures are incongruent, it will create confusion in the listener’s brain. [15] Our suggestion: practice speaking in front of a mirror, consciously using your hands to “describe” the words you are speaking.

Your degree of relaxation is also reflected in your body language , facial expressions, and tone of voice, and any form of stress will convey a message of distrust . Why? Your stress tells the observer’s brain that there may be something wrong, and that stimulates defensive posturing in the listener. Research shows that even a one-minute relaxation exercise will increase activity in those parts of the brain that control language, communication, social awareness, mood-regulation, and decision-making . [16] Thus, a relaxed conversation allows for increased intimacy and empathy. Stress, however, causes us to talk too much because it hinders our ability to speak with clarity.

When you speak, slow down! Slow speech rates will increase the ability for the listener to comprehend what you are saying, and this is true for both young and older adults. [17] Slower speaking will also deepen that person’s respect for you, [18] Speaking slowly is not as natural as it may seem, and as children we automatically speak fast. But you can teach yourself, and your children to slow down by consciously cutting your speech rate in half. A slow voice has a calming effect on a person who is feeling anxious , whereas a loud fast voice will stimulate excitement, anger, or fear. [19]

Try this experiment: pair up with a partner and speak so slowly that … you … leave … 5 … seconds … of … silence … between … each … word. You’ll become aware of your negative inner speech that tells you that you should babble on endlessly and as fast as possible. It’s a trap, because the listener’s brain can only recall about 10 seconds of content! That’s why, when we train people in Compassionate Communication, we ask participants to speak only one sentence at a time, slowly, and then listen deeply as the other person speaks for ten seconds or less. This exercise will increase your overall consciousness about the importance of the first 7 elements of highly effective communication. Then, and only then, will you truly grasp the deeper meaning that is imparted by each word spoken by others.

But what about written communication, where you only have access to the words? When it comes to mutual comprehension, the written word pales in comparison to speech. To compensate, your brain imposes arbitrary meanings onto the words. You, the reader, give the words emotional impact that often differs from what the writer intended, which is why so many email correspondences get misinterpreted. And unless the writer fills in the blanks with specific emotional words and descriptive speech – storytelling – the reader will experience your writing as being flat, boring , dry, and probably more negative than you intended.

The solution: help the reader “paint a picture” in their mind with your words. Use concrete nouns and action verbs because they are easier for the reader’s brain to visualize. Words like “sunset” or “eat” are easy to see in the mind's eye, but words like “freedom” or “identify” force the brain to sort through too many conceptual frameworks. Instead, our lazy brain will skip over as many words as possible, especially the abstract ones. When this happens the deeper levels of meaning and feeling will be lost.

For more information on how to improve your speaking and listening skills, along with additional exercises to practice, see Words Can Change Your Brain: 12 Conversation Strategies for Building Trust, Reducing Conflict, and Increasing Intimacy (Newberg & Waldman, 2012, Hudson Street Press).

[1] Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Bateson M, Nettle D, Roberts G. Biol Lett. 2006 Sep 22;2(3):412-4.

[2] Effects of anonymity on antisocial behavior committed by individuals. Nogami T, Takai J. Psychol Rep. 2008 Feb;102(1):119-30.

[3] Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity? Fehr E, Schneider F. Proc Biol Sci. 2010 May 7;277(1686):1315-23.

[4] Evaluating faces on trustworthiness: an extension of systems for recognition of emotions signaling approach/avoidance behaviors. Todorov A. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Mar;1124:208-24.

[5] Common neural mechanisms for the evaluation of facial trustworthiness and emotional expressions as revealed by behavioral adaptation. Engell AD, Todorov A, Haxby JV. Perception. 2010;39(7):931-41.

[6] Use of affective prosody by young and older adults. Dupuis K, Pichora-Fuller MK. Psychol Aging. 2010 Mar;25(1):16-29.

[7] "Worth a thousand words": absolute and relative decoding of nonlinguistic affect vocalizations. Hawk ST, van Kleef GA, Fischer AH, van der Schalk J. Emotion. 2009 Jun;9(3):293-305.

[8] Leadership = Communication? The Relations of Leaders' Communication Styles with Leadership Styles, Knowledge Sharing and Leadership Outcomes. de Vries RE, Bakker-Pieper A, Oostenveld W. J Bus Psychol. 2010 Sep;25(3):367-380.

[9] Voice analysis during bad news discussion in oncology: reduced pitch, decreased speaking rate, and nonverbal communication of empathy. McHenry M, Parker PA, Baile WF, Lenzi R. Support Care Cancer. 2011 May 15.

[10] Components of placebo effect: randomised controlled trial in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Kaptchuk TJ, Kelley JM, Conboy LA, Davis RB, Kerr CE, Jacobson EE, Kirsch I, Schyner RN, Nam BH, Nguyen LT, Park M, Rivers AL, McManus C, Kokkotou E, Drossman DA, Goldman P, Lembo AJ. BMJ. 2008 May 3;336(7651):999-1003.

[11] Use of affective prosody by young and older adults. Dupuis K, Pichora-Fuller MK. Psychol Aging. 2010 Mar;25(1):16-29.

[12] Gestures orchestrate brain networks for language understanding. Skipper JI, Goldin-Meadow S, Nusbaum HC, Small SL. Curr Biol. 2009 Apr 28;19(8):661-7.

[13] When language meets action: the neural integration of gesture and speech. Willems RM, Ozyürek A, Hagoort P. Cereb Cortex. 2007 Oct;17(10):2322-33.

[14] When the hands speak. Gentilucci M, Dalla Volta R, Gianelli C. J Physiol Paris. 2008 Jan-May;102(1-3):21-30. Epub 2008 Mar 18.

[15] How symbolic gestures and words interact with each other. Barbieri F, Buonocore A,Volta RD, Gentilucci M. Brain Lang. 2009 Jul;110(1):1-11.

[16i] Short-term meditation training improves attention and self-regulation. Tang YY, Ma Y, Wang J, Fan Y, Feng S, Lu Q, Yu Q, Sui D, Rothbart MK, Fan M, Posner MI. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Oct 23;104(43):17152-6.

[17] Comprehension of speeded discourse by younger and older listeners. Gordon MS, Daneman M, Schneider BA. Exp Aging Res. 2009 Jul-Sep;35(3):277-96.

[18] Celerity and cajolery: rapid speech may promote or inhibit persuasion through its impact on message elaboration. Smith SM, Shaffer, DR. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1991 Dec;17(6):663-669.

[19] Voices of fear and anxiety and sadness and depression: the effects of speech rate and loudness on fear and anxiety and sadness and depression. Siegman AW, Boyle S. J Abnorm Psychol. 1993 Aug;102(3):430-7. The angry voice: its effects on the experience of anger and cardiovascular reactivity. Siegman AW, Anderson RA, Berger T. Psychosom Med. 1990 Nov-Dec;52(6):631-43.

Andrew Newberg, M.D ., and Mark Robert Waldman are the authors of Words Can Change Your Brain .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Communication Skills
• Public Speaking

How to Evaluate a Speech

Last Updated: October 7, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Patrick Muñoz . Patrick is an internationally recognized Voice & Speech Coach, focusing on public speaking, vocal power, accent and dialects, accent reduction, voiceover, acting and speech therapy. He has worked with clients such as Penelope Cruz, Eva Longoria, and Roselyn Sanchez. He was voted LA's Favorite Voice and Dialect Coach by BACKSTAGE, is the voice and speech coach for Disney and Turner Classic Movies, and is a member of Voice and Speech Trainers Association. There are 7 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 131,905 times.

Evaluating someone else’s speech and offering feedback is a great way to improve your own public speaking skills, but what should you be focusing on? This wikiHow will teach you how to listen actively to a speech, break it down, and analyze the most important elements, like tone, content, and organization. You’ll also find tips on how to offer your feedback in a constructive, encouraging way.

Listening Actively

• Turn off all electronic devices and put away any distractions. Look at the speaker while the speech is being given. You shouldn't have anything in your hands but maybe a notepad for taking notes.
• Don't ever evaluate a speech based on the text alone. In other words, don't read the speech and offer feedback. Have the speaker perform the speech. If something is designed to be spoken, it needs to be heard if it is to be appropriately evaluated.

• If you can't find the main idea of the speech, try to guess what you think the speaker is trying to prove. Write it down. When you're evaluating the speech later, this will be helpful feedback.
• For some speeches, like a toast, a tribute, or a thank you, the main idea might be obvious, but play dumb. Is the speaker getting across the idea clearly? Or is the occasion doing too much of the work? Could the speaker do more to make the point of the speech obvious?

• If you’re listening to a persuasive speech, try to come up with responses, questions, and retorts that you might use for feedback later. What was confusing? Were there any supporting points that could be made more clear? Did you find any holes in the argument?
• If you’re listening to an informal speech, like a toast or a congratulatory speech, focus on the organization of the information that we’re getting. Does it make sense? Does it follow? Does it seem to jump around?

• Write down particularly memorable quotes or moments from the speech to praise. Write down any time the speaker gets a good crowd reaction, or a negative response.

Evaluating Specific Details

• Was the content clear and well-articulated?
• Was the argument supported with research? Good examples?
• Was the content made clear to the audience?
• Did the speaker prove their point?

• Was the supporting argument logically structured?
• Was the speech easy to follow? Difficult? Why?
• Do the speaker’s points flow logically from one to the next?
• What could be included to clear up the speech for you?

• How would you describe the style of the speech and the speaker?
• Did the style of the speech work for the content, or against it? Why?
• How convincing was the speaker?
• How was the timing of the speech? Was it easy to follow?

• Who is the audience for the speech? What are their expectations of the speech and the speaker?
• How would you describe the tone of the speech?
• Did it match the content? How?
• If not, how might the tone be improved?
• How well will the tone match the audience for the speech?

Giving Constructive Feedback

• For some speech classes, you may have to fill out a rubric or assign a grade to a speech. Follow the specific class instructions regarding this and assign a grade appropriate.

• Try to start your response with things like, “What I heard you saying is…” or “What I got from this speech was…”
• A good summary should be several sentences in the evaluation, perhaps slightly less than half of your feedback. Identify the main idea and the main supporting points of the speech. The summary should focus on content only.

• If the speaker is mostly a wet blanket, focus on how the content could better match the speaking style and how the tone might be changed to match. These are changeable things. Telling a speaker to be "more dynamic" or "funny" isn't good feedback.

• If you thought the speech was boring, instead learn to say something like, "It was subdued, which I think works well for the occasion."
• If the speaker seemed nervous, try to reassure them with some compliments, "You seemed confident up there. The material really speaks for itself."

• Don’t say, “I didn’t like the jokes you used,” say, “Next time, I think you could leave the jokes out and the speech would move a little quicker.”

• Focus first on content corrections, the organization of the speech, and the tone before you focus on anything else in the speech. These are the most important categories for improvement, and the best ways to quickly improve the speech. Think of these as the highest order of concern.
• Worry about the specifics of the delivery later. Whether or not the timing of the joke at the end of the speech works should be one of the last things a speaker worries about. If the speech is already very good, feel free to move onto these secondary concerns.

Community Q&A

• Refer to your notes only if you are giving a formal or written evaluation. Thanks Helpful 15 Not Helpful 1
• Always begin and end your evaluation with praise. Thanks Helpful 12 Not Helpful 3

You Might Also Like

• ↑ Patrick Muñoz. Voice & Speech Coach. Expert Interview. 12 November 2019.
• ↑ https://www.uiltexas.org/speech/extemp/criteria-for-evaluating-informative-speakers
• ↑ http://erie.cce.cornell.edu/resources/4-h-public-presentation-speech-rubric
• ↑ http://docencia.ac.upc.edu/master/MIRI/PD/docs/11-PresentationEvaluation.pdf
• ↑ https://www.wheaton.edu/academics/services/writing-center/writing-resources/style-diction-tone-and-voice/
• ↑ https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/Evaluating%2520Handout%2520Final%2520PDF%25202020.pdf
• ↑ https://www.noslangues-ourlanguages.gc.ca/en/blogue-blog/methode-sandwich-method-eng

About This Article

To evaluate a speech, start by listening attentively to the speaker and taking notes to help you identify the main arguments they are trying to make. Then, determine if the content of the speech was clear and supported by examples. Additionally, consider whether the information was organized so that it was easy to follow. Next, identify strengths and weakness in the delivery of the speech, including the tone and style of the speaker. Finally, write down your feedback, focusing on 3 areas to improve on and at least 1 thing the speaker did well. For tips on giving feedback to the speaker without offending them, keep reading. Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Chio Valdez

Jan 23, 2018

Did this article help you?

Ravish Kumar

Oct 4, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

To Overcome Your Fear of Public Speaking, Stop Thinking About Yourself

• Sarah Gershman

Tips for before and during your presentation.

Even the most confident speakers find ways to distance themselves from their audience. It’s how our brains are programmed, so how can we overcome it? Human generosity. The key to calming the amygdala and disarming our panic button is to turn the focus away from ourselves — away from whether we will mess up or whether the audience will like us — and toward helping the audience. Showing kindness and generosity to others has been shown to activate the vagus nerve, which has the power to calm the fight-or-flight response. When we are kind to others, we tend to feel calmer and less stressed. The same principle applies in speaking. When we approach speaking with a spirit of generosity, we counteract the sensation of being under attack and we feel less nervous.

Most of us — even those at the top — struggle with public-speaking anxiety. When I ask my clients what makes them nervous, invariably they respond with the same answers:

• Sarah Gershman is an executive speech coach and CEO of Green Room Speakers. She is a professor at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, where she teaches public speaking to leaders from around the globe.

Partner Center

Morningside Campus/Limited Access

Faculty - August 13, 2018

Five Tips to Give a Great Speech

• Strategic Communication

Anybody can learn to give a great speech, says  Jane Praeger , a faculty member for the  Programs in Strategic Communication  at Columbia University’s School of Professional Studies. She offers five tips on how to keep speeches both simple and authentic.

1. Practice Beforehand

Practice replacing filler words like "um," "so," and "like" with silence. If you can rehearse in the space where you’ll be speaking, that’s a real plus. Go to the back of the room, imagine that you’re hard of hearing or distracted, and you’ll know how to reach those people.

2. Work the Room

Try to speak to audience members before your speech, so that you can focus on a few friendly faces, particularly if you get nervous. If you’re making eye contact with a friendly person in one quadrant, those nearby will think that you’re talking to them. Then do the same thing in another quadrant. You want to see your talk as a series of conversations with different people throughout the room.

3. Prepare with Relaxation Techniques

If you’re nervous before approaching the stage, take a few deep breaths. Picture yourself delivering a successful speech. Most people will be nervous for the first few minutes, but you want to channel that adrenaline into positive energy.

4. Don’t Read Your Speech

Tell your speech from heart or use a notecard with bullet points as a cheat sheet. Bring the card with you and place it on the lectern. If you freeze up mid-speech, you can take a deep breath, look at your card, and know exactly which story you’re going to tell next.

5. Stand Up Straight

Whether you walk across the stage or stand behind a lectern, try to maintain good posture. Imagine that your head is being held up by a string. Standing up straight shows that you have confidence in what you’re talking about and your audience will feel more inclined to listen.

Read the full story for five more tips at  Forbes  and learn more about the  Programs in Strategic Communication  at Columbia University’s School of Professional Studies.

Related News

Columbia sps equips leaders for booming sustainability management field highlights from this year’s sustainability management program. faculty congestion pricing is nearly here it is indeed ironic that democratic new jersey governor phil murphy, republican representative nicole malliotakis from staten island, and democratic representative josh gottheimer from new jersey all share intense opposition to congestion pricing south of 60th street in manhattan. faculty australia's war on elon musk listen to technology management program director alexis wichowski interviewed on australia's abc radio national about elon musk accusing australian prime minister anthony albanese of censorship. all news footer social links.

203 Lewisohn Hall 2970 Broadway, MC 4119 New York, NY, 10027

© Copyright 2019 Columbia University School of Professional Studies. Privacy Policy

• Speech Writing
• Delivery Techniques
• PowerPoint & Visuals
• Speaker Habits
• Speaker Resources

Speech Critiques

• Book Reviews
• Browse Articles
• ALL Articles
• Learn About Us
• About Six Minutes
• Meet Our Authors
• Write for Us
• Advertise With Us

Body Movement Tips for Public Speakers

Body movement is an aspect of public speaking that often gets ignored. Unfortunately, this leads to two extreme behaviors that are equally bad:

• A speaker who stands rigidly on a single spot for their entire presentation, or
• A speaker who moves constantly in dizzying motion

True effectiveness lies in between these two extremes, with purposeful body movement that complements the speaker’s message, and adds authenticity to the overall delivery.

In this article, we reveal 7 benefits of body movement for speakers , review a series of negative body movements , and share 18 practical tips for purposeful movement that enhances your overall presentation.

What this article is NOT about

Upper -body movements are critical to a speaker’s effectiveness, whether it be hand gestures, facial expressions, or subtle movements of your head as you gaze around. However, for this article, we’re going to focus on lower -body movements where you use your legs and feet to move around the room.

Also, we’re not focusing on speaking situations where you are mandated to stay in one spot, usually at a lectern. While you can (and probably should) pivot your body in these situations, your freedom to move is curtailed. A few examples of such situations are:

• Highly formal occasions (e.g. commencement speech)
• Press conferences
• Speaking in a place of worship
• Political speeches, particularly when being recorded on video
• Any other situations when you are constrained by a fixed microphone

Benefits of Body Movement while Presenting

“ Purposeful body movement complements your message, and adds authenticity to your overall delivery. ”

In the vast majority of speaking situations, your movement isn’t constrained. Take advantage of this, and move your body! There are many benefits to doing so, including:

• Support your message. When in harmony with your words, full-body movement can accentuate and augment your message.
• Increase authenticity. If you are passionate about your message and comfortable when presenting it, then movement is natural. So, if you remain rigidly planted too long in one spot, your audience may doubt your passion and authenticity.
• Enable balanced audience connection. As you move from the center of the speaking area to the left or to the right, full-body movement brings you closer to different audience members. By reducing the separation distance, you will increase your ability to  connect with your audience  in a balanced way.
• Own the stage. As a presenter, you are afforded the opportunity to use the whole speaking area in any way that enhances your presentation. Rather than imposing an arbitrary restriction on yourself to stand in a single spot, you can symbolically “own the stage” by using more of it.
• Attract audience attention. Body movement is the largest physical gesture that you can make (i.e. it’s “bigger” than gestures with your hands, face, or eyes). For this reason, any full-body movement tends to immediately attract attention from your audience.
• Dissipate nervous energy. If you are stationary for too long, then your body will gravitate toward distracting oscillating movements (see below for examples) as a means of expending nervous energy. Purposeful body movement will dissipate this energy in a non-distracting way.
• Avoid muscle stagnation. If you lock your knees and plant your feet for long periods of time, your muscles can tighten up. Occasional body movements avoid this and keep your blood pumping. By caring for your physical needs, you are able to deliver your best speech possible!

Body Movements to Avoid when Speaking

“ When in harmony with your words, full-body movement can accentuate and augment your message. ”

Before we discuss positive movements you can incorporate into your presentation, let’s go over a series of detrimental movements that you should avoid.

• Pacing back and forth. (Oscillation #1) A few years ago, I attended a technical conference where one of the keynote speakers was an industry expert “idol” of mine. Imagine my dismay when he spent virtually the entire hour pacing between two points like a ping-pong ball. The constant oscillating movement was terribly distracting. His effectiveness was further diminished because his eyes were constantly directed at one wall or the other instead of toward his audience.
• Swaying or rocking front to back. (Oscillation #2) We all have our presenting demons, and this motion — shifting weight repetitively front to back — is occasionally one of mine. This oscillation, which all parents master when rocking an infant to sleep, can induce drowsiness in your audience in extreme cases. Eek!
• Yo-yo-ing between screen and laptop. (Oscillation #3) Imagine a presenter running back and forth between the screen (to present visuals) and a laptop (to advance the slides). Now imagine this pattern repeating forty times over an hour! Not only is it tiring for the speaker, but it is distracting for the audience. To project a more professional, composed manner, I encourage all speakers to invest in a presentation remote . I love everything about the Kensington Wireless Presenter , but any similar device will prevent yo-yo-ing. Get one with the features you like and use it.
• Tripping over anything or falling off stage. Do a visual check of the floor area when you arrive at the venue, and make sure you stay within safe boundaries. In addition to potential injury, a mistake like this can destroy the mood. (If it happens to you, try to quickly laugh it off, and re-engage.)
• Any movement that could result in injury. I once attended a speech competition where one of the speakers attempted to perform a ballet pirouette while sharing a story about her youth. I don’t know if the stage was slippery, or if her shoes gave out, but the pirouette ended with her crashing down onto her knees. It wasn’t the impact she was aiming for. (She was visibly in pain, but I applaud her for continuing on.)
• Any movement that leads to an awkward or revealing position. Maybe it’s a twist leading to a wardrobe malfunction. Maybe it’s a bend that gives the audience an unwanted viewpoint. Maybe it’s something else. Accidents can’t always be avoided, but try to anticipate negative consequences.
• Any full-body movement that distracts while you deliver key lines. While you deliver your core points (including your opening and your conclusion), avoid moving around. At these times, take a strong stance, look straight at your audience, and reinforce your words with hand gestures or other upper body movements.

18 Tips to Inject Movement into Your Presentation

“ If you are passionate about your message and comfortable when presenting it, then movement is natural. ”

Now that we’ve discussed the negative movements to avoid, let’s focus our attention on strategies to incorporate more purposeful movement into your presentation. Each of the following tips achieves one or more of the benefits mentioned earlier.

• Stand firm and deliver introduction
• Move your body as you transition to first point
• Stand firm and deliver first point
• Move your body as you transition to second point
• Stand firm and deliver second point
• Move your body as you transition to conclusion
• Stand firm and deliver conclusion
• Step forward when delivering key points. Some speakers step forward (or lean forward) when delivering their most important lines. If done smoothly, this signals to your audience that you are about to say something of great importance. (Think about how you “lean in” to share a secret in a private conversation.) Be careful not to overdo this; it can detract from your presentation if you mechanically rock back-and-forth every paragraph.
• Aim for left-right balance. Depending on the room setup and the nature of your presentation, you may be forced to adopt asymmetric positions. For example, if presenting slides on a screen that is centered relative to the audience, it is natural for you to stand to the left or right of the screen. However, if you take up a single position (e.g. the left side) for the entire presentation, audience members on the “far side” of the room can feel disconnected. This dilemma is solved by adding variety throughout your speech: sometimes stand on the left, and sometimes stand on the right.
• Position yourself in front of the screen (#1) Another way to counteract the asymmetry dilemma when presenting with slides is to take up a position right in front of the screen. Normally, this is crazy, because you don’t want to block sight lines and frustrate your audience. However, it can be effective if used sparingly. For example, you can use your arms as pointers to refer directly to key data points or parts of a diagram.
• Position yourself in front of the screen (#2) When in PowerPoint’s “Slide Show” mode, the “b” key will blank the screen. Use this to take the visuals away when you don’t need them. This allows you to stand front and center (in front of the screen) where your audience’s attention will be focussed on you (rather than the “old” slide behind you). Several presentation remotes have a button that triggers this mode as well. If you aren’t using software that provides this feature, just plan for it by inserting an all-black slide at certain positions in your slide deck.
• Walk to a flip chart or a whiteboard. Another way to incorporate movement and left-right balance is to strategically map out different areas of the speaking area for different activities. For example, I often present in a wide training room that has a whiteboard on the right side. If I know I’ll be using the whiteboard periodically, I might take up a position on the left or center for “non-whiteboard” segments.
• Walk into audience area during a group exercise. When delivering training courses, I like to walk around the tables and chairs while an individual or group exercise is being performed. This allows me to check on the progress being made, and it invites more questions than I would otherwise receive if I remained up at the front of the room the whole time. It seems like participants feel more comfortable asking for help if I enter the “audience space”.
• Fetch a prop. Depending on what your speech prop is and how cumbersome it is to handle, you might choose to “conceal” it at the side of the room or away from the speaking area. Then, when you need it, you can walk to retrieve it. If done well, this can heighten the suspense and build-up to “revealing” the prop.
• Distribute a handout. Think about when to distribute your handout . If you decide to distribute it in the middle of your presentation, this is an obvious opportunity for body movement. Beware of overkill here. In a large room, it isn’t necessary or advisable for you to individually hand out copies to each person. Just pass a few stacks to people at a few corners, and let the handouts propagate.
• Incorporate a demonstration. Many types of demonstrations require full-body movement, and this tends to raise the energy level of your presentation.
• “…and then I stormed into the room…”
• “…she was strutting around without a care in the world…”
• “…scared and confused, I retreated into the shadows…”
• [Pivot your body left] “You stole the cookie from the cookie jar!”
• [Pivot your body right] “Who me? Couldn’t be!”
• [Pivot left again] “Then who?”
• [Pivot right again] “It was Daddy!”
• Stray a little from the lectern. Suppose you need to stay close to a lectern because you rely heavily on written notes, or you need to be within arms reach of a laptop for a software demonstration. In these situations, most speakers will “give up” and abandon full-body movements entirely. Although you are constrained, you can still make use of the area immediately around the lectern. For example, you can adopt positions centered on the lectern, one arm to the left of the lectern, or one arm to the right of the lectern. While this is not as optimal as being free of the lectern entirely, it is much better than the rigid alternative.
• Walk toward audience members during Q&A. Whether formal or informal, a question and answer session is a perfect opportunity for body movement, especially in larger rooms. As each question is asked, you can walk towards the person asking the question. This is both an act of respect (i.e. you are devoting your whole attention to them), and also a way to ensure that you hear them accurately.
• Sit for a while. Sitting? Wasn’t this article about full-body movement? How does sitting qualify? Consider that sitting for a portion of your presentation (and getting back up again) can achieve several of the benefits claimed above: increase authenticity, attract audience attention, dissipate nervous energy, and avoid muscle stagnation. Sitting won’t always be an option, because the room and available furniture may not support it. But, if you have a raised platform or a tall stool which allows you to maintain high visibility, and if sitting is an appropriate match for your presentation style and tone, then try it.
• Seek meaningful feedback. Find people in your audience that you can trust, and ask them for meaningful feedback on your body movement (or lack thereof). Did your movement support your message? Was your movement natural and authentic? Did you have any awkward and distracting movements? To gain the most valuable feedback, ask them before  your presentation to watch your body movement with a critical eye.
• Record yourself on video. To complement feedback from others, set yourself up to do a self-critique. Record yourself, and play it back. Ask yourself all of the same questions, and brainstorm alternative choices you could have made.
• What do they do well? How can you incorporate those movements?
• What do they do which is distracting? How can you avoid those pitfalls?
• How do different speakers handle a diversity of settings and audiences? How can you prepare for similar situations?

Your Turn: What’s Your Opinion?

Do you have a personal crutch when it comes to full-body movements? What additional tips have you learned to help you move with purpose? Can you share a story about a speaker with exceptionally good or exceptionally bad speech movement? Please share in the article comments .

Please share this...

This is one of many public speaking articles featured on Six Minutes . Subscribe to Six Minutes for free to receive future articles.

Image credit: Spliced image was created from TEDx talk by Ariel Garten .

Add a Comment Cancel reply

E-Mail (hidden)

Subscribe - It's Free!

Similar articles you may like....

• Boost Your Speaking Confidence Through Improv
• Ethos, Pathos, Logos: 3 Pillars of Public Speaking
• How to Connect With Your Audience by Moving Closer
• Are Your Speech Gestures Too Small, Too Big, or Just Right?
• Connect With Your Audience: Don’t Hide Your Emotions When Speaking
• Book Review: 101 Ways to Make Training Active (Mel Silberman)

Find More Articles Tagged:

Recent tweets.

Body Movement Tips for Public Speakers via @6minutes https://t.co/rwNqL4tNeA #publicpeaking #professionalspeaker #Toastmasters — SpeakersGuild (@SpeakersGuild) Jul 25th, 2018

Another great article from @6minutes – Body Movement Tips for Public Speakers https://t.co/ruG3qGfNwu… https://t.co/DM6PjsOpDB — Mel Sherwood – Pitch & Presentation Specialist (@MelSherwood_) Jul 26th, 2018

“#6: Dissipate nervous energy.” One of many great reasons to incorporate intentional body movement into a speech. T… https://t.co/3SZMOzinrk — @speakupcamb Jul 26th, 2018

Body Movement Tips for Public Speakers #publicspeaking https://t.co/rhdhQXEpek — @altinc Jul 28th, 2018

Helpful Article: Body Movement Tips for Public Speakers https://t.co/M7nE5Iivlr — Cindy Pladziewicz (@cynthiapladz) Jul 28th, 2018

Body Movement Tips for Public Speakers https://t.co/afbNI1rqO8 by @6minutes — Presentation Guild (@presentguild) Jul 28th, 2018

Body Movement Tips for Public Speakers https://t.co/3PvR2GiEhh https://t.co/9mHB7c3Nda — Rohit Chattopadhyay (@rohitchat23) Jul 30th, 2018

“Body Movement Tips for Public Speakers” https://t.co/aPBGFcPWI5 — @HITConfGuy Aug 5th, 2018

Great body movement tips for #publicspeaking. https://t.co/nqY8CakCG1 — @stephaniescotti Aug 20th, 2018

Here are some body movement tips for Public Speakers that complements the speaker’s message, and adds authenticity… https://t.co/gyVjReKRDo — @freeyouupva Nov 5th, 2018

Featured Articles

• Majora Carter (TED, 2006) Energy, Passion, Speaking Rate
• Hans Rosling (TED, 2006) 6 Techniques to Present Data
• J.A. Gamache (Toastmasters, 2007) Gestures, Prop, Writing
• Steve Jobs (Stanford, 2005) Figures of speech, rule of three
• Al Gore (TED, 2006) Humor, audience interaction
• Dick Hardt (OSCON, 2005) Lessig Method of Presentation

Books We Recommend

Six Minutes Copyright © 2007-2022 All Rights Reserved.

Read our permissions policy , privacy policy , or disclosure policy .

Comments? Questions? Contact us .

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 9 min read

10 Common Presentation Mistakes

Avoiding common pitfalls in your presentations.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Most of us have experienced dull, irrelevant or confusing presentations. But think back to the last really great presentation you saw – one that was informative, motivating and inspiring. Wouldn't you love to be able to present like that?

This article looks at 10 of the most common mistakes that speakers make when giving presentations. By avoiding these, you'll make your presentations stand out – for all of the right reasons, and none of the wrong ones.

Mistake 1: Not Preparing Enough

Steve Jobs was a famously inspiring speaker. His speeches may have looked effortless, but, in reality, each one took days or weeks of preparation.

Careful preparation is essential. The amount of time you spend on planning depends on your situation, but it's a good idea to start early – you can never be too well-prepared.

Proper preparation also helps you to manage presentation nerves . When you know your material inside and out, you're far less likely to feel nervous. Our presentation planning checklist and Skillbook " Even Better Presentations " can help you to plan your next event properly.

Mistake 2: Not Familiarizing Yourself With the Venue and Equipment

Imagine that your presentation starts in an hour. You arrive at the venue and, to your horror, the projector won't work with your laptop. The slides you spent hours preparing are useless. This is a disaster!

You can avoid a situation like this by taking time to familiarize yourself with the venue and available equipment at least once before your presentation.

Often, the sorts of problems that can jeopardize your presentation will be situations beyond your control, but this doesn't mean that you're helpless. Conduct a risk analysis to identify potential issues, and come up with a good "Plan B" for each one.

Mistake 3: Ignoring Your Audience

Sometimes, speakers can get so wrapped up in delivering their presentations that they forget about the needs of their audience.

Start your presentation by telling your audience what to expect. Let them know what you'll cover first, whether and when you'll stop for a break, if you'll be taking questions during the presentation, and so on.

Providing these "signposts" up front will give your audience a clear idea of what to expect, so that they can relax and concentrate on your presentation.

Mistake 4: Using Inappropriate Content

The primary purpose of any presentation is to share information with others, so it's important to consider the level you'll pitch it at.

Do some research on your audience. Why are they here? How much do they already know about your topic, and what do they most want to learn from you? It's no use giving a presentation that's so full of jargon that no one understands you. But you wouldn't want to patronize people, either.

Try to put yourself in people's shoes, to get a clearer idea about their needs and motivations. You can also greet individuals as they arrive on the day, and ask questions to get a feel for their level of knowledge. This will also help you to personalize your presentation and make a connection with each person in your audience, so that they'll be more attentive to what you say.

Mistake 5: Being Too Verbose

Short, concise presentations are often more powerful than verbose ones. Try to limit yourself to a few main points. If you take too long getting to your point, you risk losing your audience's attention.

The average adult has a 15- to 20-minute attention span. So, if you want to keep your audience engaged, stick to the point! During the planning phase, make a note of the themes you want to cover and how you want to get them across. Then, when you start filling out the details, ask yourself: "Does my audience really need to know this?"

Our articles on the 7 Cs of Communication and Communications Planning have more tips for communicating in a clear, concise way.

Mistake 6: Using Ineffective Visuals

Poor slides can spoil a good presentation, so it's worth spending time getting yours right.

We've all seen slides with garish colors, unnecessary animation, or fonts that are too small to read. The most effective presentation visuals aren't flashy – they're concise and consistent.

When choosing colors, think about where the presentation will take place. A dark background with light or white text works best in dark rooms, while a white background with dark text is easier to see in a brightly lit room.

Choose your pictures carefully, too. High-quality graphics can clarify complex information and lift an otherwise plain screen, but low-quality images can make your presentation appear unprofessional. Unless an image is contributing something, embrace the negative space – less clutter means greater understanding. Use animation sparingly, too – a dancing logo or emoji will only distract your audience.

Mistake 7: Overcrowding Text

The best rule of thumb for text is to keep it simple . Don't try to cram too much information into your slides. Aim for a maximum of three to four words within each bullet point, and no more than three bullets per slide.

This doesn't mean that you should spread your content over dozens of slides. Limit yourself to 10 slides or fewer for a 30-minute presentation. Look at each slide, story or graph carefully. Ask yourself what it adds to the presentation, and remove it if it isn't important.

Mistake 8: Speaking Incoherently

Even though we spend a significant part of the day talking to one another, speaking to an audience is a surprisingly difficult skill, and it's one that we need to practice.

If nerves make you rush through a presentation, your audience could miss your most important points. Use centering or deep breathing techniques to suppress the urge to rush. If you do begin to babble, take a moment to collect yourself. Breathe deeply, and enunciate each word clearly, while you focus on speaking more slowly.

Our article on better public speaking has strategies and tips that you can use to become a more engaging speaker. One useful technique is storytelling – stories can be powerful tools for inspiring and engaging others. Our Expert Interviews with Annette Simmons and Paul Smith have tips that you can use to tell great stories.

Mistake 9: Showing a Lack of Dynamism

Another common mistake is to freeze in one spot for the duration of your presentation.

Some presenters feel most comfortable behind the podium. Try to emulate great speakers like Steve Jobs , who moved purposefully around the stage during his presentations.

As well as working the stage, he used gestures and body language to communicate his excitement and passion for his subject. Pay attention to what your hands are doing – they're important for communicating emotion. But only use gestures if they feel natural, and avoid being too flamboyant with your arms, unless you want to make your audience laugh!

See our Expert Interview, " Winning Body Language ," to learn more about body language and what it says to your audience.

Mistake 10: Avoiding Eye Contact

Have you ever been to a presentation where the speaker spent all of their time looking at their notes, the screen, the floor, or even at the ceiling? How did this make you feel?

Meeting a person's gaze establishes a personal connection, and even a quick glance can keep people engaged. If your audience is small enough, try to make eye contact with each individual at least once.

If the audience is too large for this, try looking at people's foreheads. The individual may not interpret it as eye contact, but those sitting around them will.

It takes practice and effort to deliver a good presentation. But, if you know how to avoid the pitfalls, your presentations will be great.

Common presentation mistakes include not preparing properly, delivering inappropriate content, and speaking poorly.

Time spent on careful planning always pays dividends. Check out the venue, and familiarize yourself with equipment in advance to avoid possible problems.

Keep your content clear and concise, with visual aids to match. And make sure that you pitch it at the right level for your audience's understanding, so that your presentation doesn't patronize or bewilder.

Remember, public speaking is a performance. Practice speaking clearly with a slower pace than your normal speech to avoid "rapid-fire" delivery. Use eye contact, body language and gestures that complement your message to keep your audience engaged.

Infographic

See 10 Common Presentation Mistakes represented as an infographic .

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

Presenting like a pro.

Using rhetorical tricks to create impact

Top Tips: Presenting Financial Information

Present Financial Information Clearly and Confidently

Add comment

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!

Get 30% off your first year of Mind Tools

Great teams begin with empowered leaders. Our tools and resources offer the support to let you flourish into leadership. Join today!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Newest Releases

What Is Stakeholder Management?

GE-McKinsey Matrix

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Business reports.

Using the Right Format for Sharing Information

Making the Right Career Move

Choosing the Role That's Best for You

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

How to promote wellbeing at work.

This Methodology Guides You Through the Main Elements of Promoting Employee Wellbeing

How to Guides

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Workplace Articles & More

Six tips for speaking up against bad behavior, psychologist catherine sanderson explains how to be more courageous in speaking up about bad behavior, from offensive speech to harmful actions..

When I was in college, my boss drove me to a meeting. He had trouble finding a parking place—and, when he realized we were going to be late, pulled into a handicapped parking spot. As we got out of the car, he turned to me, grinned, and started limping. I fully knew that what he did was wrong. And I said nothing. 

My failure to call out my boss is hardly unique. Yet like most people, if you’d asked me beforehand if I’d have the courage to do the right thing—to confront someone who uses a racist slur or engages in derogatory behavior—I would have said yes. But in reality, most of us fail to step up when actually facing such a situation. Why? 

One factor that inhibits speaking up is our fear of the consequences. Will it cost me a promotion or a raise? Will I lose a friendship, get a reputation as a troublemaker, or be excluded from subsequent family gatherings or meetings? I needed a letter of reference from my boss; I didn’t want to hurt my chances for a strong recommendation.

I’m not alone in having such fears: Many people knew for decades about the horrific behavior of entertainment executive Harvey Weinstein…and they said nothing. They feared, and probably rightly so, that reporting his repeated acts of sexual assault would have dire professional consequences. They stayed silent, and his behavior, of course, continued.

Another factor is confusion about what we’re actually seeing or hearing. Is that comment at the office a harmless joke, or is it racist and offensive? Is that spat a minor quarrel, or a serious case of domestic violence? Ambiguous situations like these make it harder for people to step up and act, because we don’t want to appear stupid or overly sensitive.

Social psychologists have consistently found that people are far more willing to take action in the case of a clear emergency than when they find themselves in an ambiguous situation. In one study , researchers compared rates of helping for those who heard an ambiguous emergency (a loud crash in another room) versus an unambiguous one (a loud crash followed by groans of pain). Those who heard the crash and the groan were much more likely to help.

Inaction in ambiguous situations is partially driven by worry that our behavior will be judged by others. It helps explain why only 19% of people intervene when they see a fight between a man and a woman when they believe they are watching a romantic quarrel (because the woman yells out “I never should have married you”), whereas 65% of people intervene when they believe they are watching a fight between strangers (when the woman yells out “I don’t know you”). While intervening in a potentially violent conflict between strangers seems clearly the right thing to do, interfering in a domestic dispute may just cause awkwardness and embarrassment for all parties.

When facing an ambiguous situation, our natural tendency is to look to others to figure out what’s going on. But here’s the problem: If each person is looking to the people around them to act, and no one wants to risk feeling foolish and embarrassed, the problematic comment or behavior may be left unchallenged. And this silence conveys a lack of concern, or even tacit acquiescence, making it far more likely that it will continue.

One of my students—a male varsity basketball player—once told me that every day in the locker room, someone says something offensive. Then he wondered aloud, “Why do I sometimes say something and sometimes I don’t?” He recognized that what he was hearing was offensive, but also that he didn’t always speak up. What he probably didn’t understand was that in all likelihood some of his teammates also felt uncomfortable with these comments but, like him, felt more comfortable being silent, at least some of the time.

Though we all imagine ourselves as courageous people who’d do the right thing, it’s not so simple. Over the last few months, we’ve seen multiple examples illustrating the challenge of calling out bad behavior in the case of mask wearing. If you see someone in a store not wearing a mask, do you speak up? You could—and you probably should—but you may worry about whether that person would become aggressive, or whether it’s your place to do so. Or how about if you notice a store clerk asking a customer to put on a mask, and see a confrontation escalating? Should you get involved? Again, you may worry about the potential consequences, such as increasing the spread of potentially infected saliva as more and more people talk. 

But the good news is we can hone specific skills for challenging bad behavior when we need to. Here are some science-based tips.

1. Find a short and clear way of expressing concern or disapproval

This helps you avoid getting embroiled in a lengthy “teachable moment” or humiliating the other person. It simply identifies that the comment or action isn’t OK—for the person engaging in the behavior and for those observing it. 

One study examining responses to homophobic comments in the workplace found that the most effective type of confrontation was calm but direct: “Hey, that’s not cool.” A similar approach could be used for almost any type of harmful behavior, from calling out someone for using offensive language to intervening when a colleague is rude to a coworker. Openly expressing disapproval clearly communicates what isn’t acceptable, an essential first step in creating new social norms. 

2. Assume that a comment is sarcastic and identify it as such

Sometimes you can disarm a speaker by assuming they are only being sarcastic. So, for example, you could respond to a sexist comment about the hazards of voting for a woman by saying, “I know you’re just trying to be funny, but some people really do think that women are too emotional to be president!” Your response clarifies that you disagree with the comment, but it doesn’t make the person who made the remark appear stupid or bad.

3. Make the discomfort about you, not them

One way of doing this is to reveal a personal connection to explain your reaction to an insensitive remark. You could say, “I was raised in the Catholic church so that comment is hard for me to hear,” or “A close friend of mine was sexually assaulted in high school, so jokes about rape make me uncomfortable.” This reduces the risk that you will make the person feel bad or defensive, but it also clearly indicates that their comment or behavior was wrong. 

4. Actively play out different types of responses to offensive remarks or problematic behavior

Learning different techniques for confronting bias or unethical behavior can make a difference, but it’s not enough to learn skills and strategies; it’s essential to practice using them. Practicing helps reduce inhibitions about speaking up and makes responding feel more normal. It also increases our confidence that we can intervene in a real-world situation. 

This is why the most effective programs for helping bystanders speak up—in schools, universities, and workplaces—not only provide training on how to handle difficult situations but also give people opportunities to practice these skills by roleplaying various scenarios.

5. Find a friend who shares your concern

Doug McAdam, a sociologist at Stanford University, found that what best predicts when someone will challenge prevailing social norms, even at great personal risk, is not having to do so alone. The downfall of Theranos (a company that made fraudulent claims about blood testing) started when two employees spoke out together about their concerns, even though they knew they would face potentially lasting personal and professional repercussions. For those of us who aren’t naturally courageous, finding a friend to stand by our side can be essential. 

6. Put yourself in someone else’s shoes

In 1999, Kathryn Bolkovac, a former police officer, was working as a human rights investigator with the United Nations International Police Task Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina when she discovered that some fellow officers were engaging in sexual misconduct. They were hiring prostitutes and raping underage girls, and were involved in sex trafficking. When she reported these offenses to higher-ups, she was demoted and then fired. (In 2002, she won her lawsuit for wrongful termination.)

What led her to speak up? For Bolkovac, a mother of three, one factor was the personal connection she felt to the girls who were being abused. As she told National Public Radio, “I’d be lying if I said there certainly weren’t moments when the children—my own girls—were going through my mind.”

Speaking up and risking the consequences can be far easier if you can see the world from someone else’s perspective. Some people may naturally empathize with others, but we can all learn to be more empathic by deliberately expending the time and energy to cultivate empathy . After all, if you were being bullied or sexually assaulted, wouldn’t you want someone to stand up and help you?

We can all learn to speak up in the face of bad behavior. If enough of us do so, we can change the culture to one of courage and action instead of silence and inaction. What would it take to create a culture in which we are expected to act when we hear offensive language, witness sexual misconduct, or see workplace fraud? Sometimes just a single voice can be enough, especially when that one person gives others the courage to speak up.

About the Author

Catherine A. Sanderson

Catherine A. Sanderson, Ph.D. , is the Poler Family Professor and chair of psychology at Amherst College. You can learn more about Sanderson’s research, writing, and speaking at SandersonSpeaking.com , or follow her on Instagram at SandersonSpeaking.

You May Also Enjoy

This article — and everything on this site — is funded by readers like you.

Become a subscribing member today. Help us continue to bring “the science of a meaningful life” to you and to millions around the globe.

Top 10 Qualities of a Good Speech

Oral communication is the oldest and most widely used medium of communication. It can take place in different forms and speech is one of them. Speech is generally, the most effective medium of delivering the message in a meeting, seminars, conferences, etc. Speech refers to delivering the message through words of mouth or spoken words in front of the audience gathered in a meeting, seminar or conference.

Through speech, the speaker can present his opinions and thoughts on any matter to a large number of audiences at a time.

Therefore, it is widely used in delivering an oral message in business, social, political and religious gatherings.

A speech is a highly structured form of address in which a speaker addresses an audience gathered to hear a message.

At least, we can say that speech is a kind of formal address delivered to an audience gathered in a place to hear a message.

Related:  7C’s of Business Communication

What does a Good Speech have?

A good speech has 10 qualities that can effectively deliver a message through words of mouth or spoken words in front of an audience gathered in a meeting, seminar or conference.

Speech is an effective means of oral communication. It is delivered in front of a large gathering.

Therefore, speech serves as an important medium for presenting information in meetings, political or business gatherings.

However, a speech becomes effective when it fulfills the following features:

• Clarity Clarity is an essential feature of a good speech. A speech should be clear and unambiguous so that the audience can understand it easily. If it is not clear enough to express its meaning to the audience, it will become ineffective.
• Definiteness of Message The message of the speech should be definite and relevant to the subject matter.
• Conciseness The audience becomes impatient with a long speech. Hence, speech should be as concise as possible. However, it should not incomplete.
• Interesting A speech should be delivered in an interesting and pleasing way so that the audience is motivated to pay attention. In order to make the speech interesting, various stories, examples, quotations, and jokes can be cited.
• Informal Touch Though speech is a formal address, it should be presented in a personal and informal way.
• Considering the Audience Speech is delivered to a specific audience. So the speaker should actively consider the expectations, interest, and nature of the audience.
• Speaking Slowly An ideal speech is one that is delivered slowly and in the usual tone. It helps the audience to hear and understand the message clearly.
• Free from Emotions Another important feature of a good speech is that it should be delivered in an unbiased and unemotional way. Speaker’s emotion may drive him away from the main theme.
• Use of Body Language Good Speech goes with necessary body language. Therefore, at the time of delivering a speech, the speaker should use various nonverbal cues.
• Ensuring Participation of Audience A good speech is one that ensures the participation of the audience with the speaker. That means the audience will ensure their attention through effective listening, expressing their solidarity with the speech and so on.

If your speech fails to hit the checkboxes for these qualities, then it will lose its edge.

Despite a few limitations of a speech; if done well enough you make the audience move the earth for you.

The Master Communicator Blog

The good and the bad of speech introductions.

One of my recent LinkedIn posts touched a nerve (4,000+ views) when I urged my followers to stop saying w ithout further ado when introducing someone or starting a program. There was unanimous feedback that the cringe-worthy phrase is useless and archaic. 

People commented that introductions should be no more than two sentences. Others proposed eliminating the phrase I’d like to introduce, and the ceremonial thank you to everyone responsible for the event.

Short attention spans in person and online compel us to do better when we want to engage people when we speak or set the stage for the featured guest who will follow. The introduction is the on-ramp for a powerful opening .

Have you ever been introduced by a conference emcee who mispronounced your name? Perhaps they also read your entire two-page biography and put your audience to sleep before you stepped on the stage.

It’s time to take a close look at introductions. Here are tips for both main stage speakers and emcees.

For speakers:

1. write your own introduction. .

Your biography is not one size fits all. Adapt your biographical details to the context of the event and the people in the room. Will they care about your academic degrees or the job you held 10 years ago? Use common sense. Write your own brief intro—50 words at most. Make the job easier for the conference organizers. Include a phonetic pronunciation of your name. Add some personal details to humanize your profile and set the stage for a warm reception.

2. Stop beginning your speech with trite phrases.

Good morning and I am happy to be here are widely overused. We could assume you’re happy to be there, or you would have made other plans. It’s your job to make sure the audience is happy to be there to listen to you. Similarly, don’t front load your speech with a string of thank yous . Save the formalities for the end where it makes more sense to display appreciation for the audience’s attention.

3. Don’t pepper your opening with foreign phrases.

Refrain from the temptation to speak the few words you know en español or the host language. Avoid gratuitous attempts to show a connection to the local culture. I love arroz con pollo . You may hear polite laughter but miss the eyes rolling.

4. Command the room in the first 20 seconds. 

Get to the point, even if you choose to start with a story or anecdote. Make it relevant, captivating and on-topic. The first impression is often what the audience will remember about you and little else.

5. Resist asking, can you see my screen ?

If you’re speaking online, resist the temptation to ask: Can you see my screen ? Do a technical check-in before the virtual event to ensure that the streaming platform features and your equipment are working optimally.

For emcees:

1. avoid using without further ado , and i would like to introduce ..

Use your imagination. An alternative would be: Our next speaker is …. and say the person’s name and topic. Or I am pleased to present our next speaker .

Very early in my public relations career, I had an embarrassing moment with the word introduce in Spanish. I used the direct translation in Spanglish ( quiero introducir ) when presenting a TV superstar at a press conference. As she stepped to the microphone, she gave me a look of disapproval that shook me to the core. I learned afterwards that the usage of introducir is closer to the placement of one object inside of another. In other words, best not to use it in this setting ever again.

2. If the speaker needs no introduction, then don’t.

The cliché phrase: Our next speaker needs no introduction , is meant to flatter the speaker. She is so well known you should know who she is. But, if that’s the case, why does the emcee still offer up an introduction? Stop it. 

3. Stay in your lane as the host.

Remember that your role is to guide the agenda. You’re not the show. Keep your words brief and functional. Adhere to the allotted times and follow the run-of-show. Your job is to welcome and thank the audience and all participants on behalf of the organizers. Make it gracious and elegant. Double check the pronunciation of the speakers’ names and the way they want to be presented before you get on the stage. 

4. Cut the serial introductions.

Don’t have another speaker introduce you to the audience. Professional conferences and fundraising events are often front-loaded with serial introductions ad nauseum. An off-stage “voice of God” is a good way to bring you to the microphone efficiently.

5. Be impeccable online.

Online hosts and facilitators should look and sound impeccable. You set the tone for the program to follow, including the speakers you will bring to the virtual stage. Remember that video conferences are immersive and every detail matters. Start as you wish the program to unfold. 

And one last note about the use of the term emcee . The role is also referenced as host, MC, master(s) of ceremonies, and mistress(es) of ceremonies. The latter sounds clumsy and old fashioned. I recommend short gender-neutral terms. Whether you’re the speaker or the emcee, establish your command of the room the moment you step to the microphone and begin to speak. Thoughtful introductions will invite your audience to listen and set you up for success.

Rosemary Ravinal

Business leaders and entrepreneurs who want to elevate their public speaking impact, executive presence, and media interview skills come to me for personalized attention and measurable results. I am recognized as America’s Premier Bilingual Public Speaking Coach after decades as a corporate spokesperson and media personality in the U.S. mainstream, Hispanic and Latin American markets. My company’s services are available for individuals, teams, in-person and online, and in English and Spanish in South Florida and elsewhere.

You might also be interested in

8 communications lessons from people who stutter

The challenges faced by people who stutter, and former stutterers offer valuable lessons in communication for anyone who seeks to improve their ability to connect with impact.

What love language do you speak?

How do the five love languages relate to public speaking? When you speak from your heart, speak what you know and gift your audience knowledge and ideas that will make their lives better, you are spreading love.

True or False: 9 public speaking myths debunked

If you think that the hallmark of good public speaking is the absence of filler words, you’re wrong. It’s a myth, like many others, that inhabit the fascinating world of leadership communication. Here are nine speaking myth-busters.

Let me help you speak, engage, and persuade like a pro in person and online in English and Spanish.

BBC World Service

Listen live.

Morning Edition

NPR's Morning Edition takes listeners around the country and the world with two hours of multi-faceted stories and commentaries that inform, challenge and occasionally amuse. Morning Edition is the most listened-to news radio program in the country.

• Courts & Law
• Social Justice

The good, the bad, and the ugly of free speech

• Pamela J. Forsythe

Daryl Tempesta is shown with tape over his mouth in protest in April, in Berkeley, Calif. Demonstrators gathered near the University of California, Berkeley campus amid a strong police presence and rallied to show support for free speech and condemn the views of Ann Coulter and her supporters. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, file)

Citizens United rationale: Speech is speech

Campuses choose peace over expression, the right to be forgotten, trump and free speech.

WHYY is your source for fact-based, in-depth journalism and information. As a nonprofit organization, we rely on financial support from readers like you. Please give today.

Brought to you by Speak Easy

Thoughtful essays, commentaries, and opinions on current events, ideas, and life in the Philadelphia region.

You may also like

Philly cops fired over offensive Facebook posts can pursue First Amendment claim, court rules

A dozen Philly police officers who were fired or suspended for racist and violent social media posts can pursue a lawsuit against the city, a federal appeals court ruled.

11 months ago

Breyer joins Gorsuch as honorary co-chair of National Constitution Center

The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia said that Breyer and Gorsuch will be spokesmen for civics education and civility in politics.

2 years ago

The End of Roe: Protests, Celebration, and the Impact of Being Denied an Abortion

In the immediate aftermath of overturning Roe v. Wade, a look at the abortion debate, access to reproductive healthcare and the challenges for pregnant people turned away.

Air Date: June 30, 2022 10:00 am

About Pamela J. Forsythe

Want a digest of WHYY’s programs, events & stories? Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Together we can reach 100% of WHYY’s fiscal year goal

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

112 Persuasive Speech Topics That Are Actually Engaging

What’s covered:, how to pick an awesome persuasive speech topic, 112 engaging persuasive speech topics, tips for preparing your persuasive speech.

Writing a stellar persuasive speech requires a carefully crafted argument that will resonate with your audience to sway them to your side. This feat can be challenging to accomplish, but an engaging, thought-provoking speech topic is an excellent place to start.

When it comes time to select a topic for your persuasive speech, you may feel overwhelmed by all the options to choose from—or your brain may be drawing a completely blank slate. If you’re having trouble thinking of the perfect topic, don’t worry. We’re here to help!

In this post, we’re sharing how to choose the perfect persuasive speech topic and tips to prepare for your speech. Plus, you’ll find 112 persuasive speech topics that you can take directly from us or use as creative inspiration for your own ideas!

Choose Something You’re Passionate About

It’s much easier to write, research, and deliver a speech about a cause you care about. Even if it’s challenging to find a topic that completely sparks your interest, try to choose a topic that aligns with your passions.

However, keep in mind that not everyone has the same interests as you. Try to choose a general topic to grab the attention of the majority of your audience, but one that’s specific enough to keep them engaged.

For example, suppose you’re giving a persuasive speech about book censorship. In that case, it’s probably too niche to talk about why “To Kill a Mockingbird” shouldn’t be censored (even if it’s your favorite book), and it’s too broad to talk about media censorship in general.

Steer Clear of Cliches

Have you already heard a persuasive speech topic presented dozens of times? If so, it’s probably not an excellent choice for your speech—even if it’s an issue you’re incredibly passionate about.

Although polarizing topics like abortion and climate control are important to discuss, they aren’t great persuasive speech topics. Most people have already formed an opinion on these topics, which will either cause them to tune out or have a negative impression of your speech.

Instead, choose topics that are fresh, unique, and new. If your audience has never heard your idea presented before, they will be more open to your argument and engaged in your speech.

Have a Clear Side of Opposition

For a persuasive speech to be engaging, there must be a clear side of opposition. To help determine the arguability of your topic, ask yourself: “If I presented my viewpoint on this topic to a group of peers, would someone disagree with me?” If the answer is yes, then you’ve chosen a great topic!

Now that we’ve laid the groundwork for what it takes to choose a great persuasive speech topic, here are over one hundred options for you to choose from.

• Should high school athletes get tested for steroids?
• Should schools be required to have physical education courses?
• Should sports grades in school depend on things like athletic ability?
• What sport should be added to or removed from the Olympics?
• Should college athletes be able to make money off of their merchandise?
• Should sports teams be able to recruit young athletes without a college degree?
• Should we consider video gamers as professional athletes?
• Is cheerleading considered a sport?
• Should parents allow their kids to play contact sports?
• Should professional female athletes be paid the same as professional male athletes?
• Should college be free at the undergraduate level?
• Is the traditional college experience obsolete?
• Should you choose a major based on your interests or your potential salary?
• Should high school students have to meet a required number of service hours before graduating?
• Should teachers earn more or less based on how their students perform on standardized tests?
• Are private high schools more effective than public high schools?
• Should there be a minimum number of attendance days required to graduate?
• Are GPAs harmful or helpful?
• Should schools be required to teach about standardized testing?
• Should Greek Life be banned in the United States?
• Should schools offer science classes explicitly about mental health?
• Should students be able to bring their cell phones to school?
• Should all public restrooms be all-gender?
• Should undocumented immigrants have the same employment and education opportunities as citizens?
• Should everyone be paid a living wage regardless of their employment status?
• Should supremacist groups be able to hold public events?
• Should guns be allowed in public places?
• Should the national drinking age be lowered?
• Should prisoners be allowed to vote?
• Should the government raise or lower the retirement age?
• Should the government be able to control the population?
• Is the death penalty ethical?

Environment

• Should stores charge customers for plastic bags?
• Should breeding animals (dogs, cats, etc.) be illegal?
• Is it okay to have exotic animals as pets?
• Should people be fined for not recycling?
• Should compost bins become mandatory for restaurants?
• Should electric vehicles have their own transportation infrastructure?
• Would heavier fining policies reduce corporations’ emissions?
• Should hunting be encouraged or illegal?
• Should reusable diapers replace disposable diapers?

Science & Technology

• Is paper media more reliable than digital news sources?
• Should automated/self-driving cars be legalized?
• Should schools be required to provide laptops to all students?
• Should software companies be able to have pre-downloaded programs and applications on devices?
• Should drones be allowed in military warfare?
• Should scientists invest more or less money into cancer research?
• Should cloning be illegal?
• Should societies colonize other planets?
• Should there be legal oversight over the development of technology?

Social Media

• Should there be an age limit on social media?
• Should cyberbullying have the same repercussions as in-person bullying?
• Are online relationships as valuable as in-person relationships?
• Does “cancel culture” have a positive or negative impact on societies?
• Are social media platforms reliable information or news sources?
• Should social media be censored?
• Does social media create an unrealistic standard of beauty?
• Is regular social media usage damaging to real-life interactions?
• Is social media distorting democracy?
• How many branches of government should there be?
• Who is the best/worst president of all time?
• How long should judges serve in the U.S. Supreme Court?
• Should a more significant portion of the U.S. budget be contributed towards education?
• Should the government invest in rapid transcontinental transportation infrastructure?
• Should airport screening be more or less stringent?
• Should the electoral college be dismantled?
• Should the U.S. have open borders?
• Should the government spend more or less money on space exploration?
• Should students sing Christmas carols, say the pledge of allegiance, or perform other tangentially religious activities?
• Should nuns and priests become genderless roles?
• Should schools and other public buildings have prayer rooms?
• Should animal sacrifice be legal if it occurs in a religious context?
• Should countries be allowed to impose a national religion on their citizens?
• Should the church be separated from the state?
• Does freedom of religion positively or negatively affect societies?

Parenting & Family

• Is it better to have children at a younger or older age?
• Is it better for children to go to daycare or stay home with their parents?
• Does birth order affect personality?
• Should parents or the school system teach their kids about sex?
• Are family traditions important?
• Should parents smoke or drink around young children?
• Should “spanking” children be illegal?
• Should parents use swear words in front of their children?
• Should parents allow their children to play violent video games?

Entertainment

• Should all actors be paid the same regardless of gender or ethnicity?
• Should all award shows be based on popular vote?
• Who should be responsible for paying taxes on prize money, the game show staff or the contestants?
• Should movies and television shows have ethnicity and gender quotas?
• Should newspapers and magazines move to a completely online format?
• Should streaming services like Netflix and Hulu be free for students?
• Is the movie rating system still effective?
• Should celebrities have more privacy rights?

Arts & Humanities

• Are libraries becoming obsolete?
• Should all schools have mandatory art or music courses in their curriculum?
• Should offensive language be censored from classic literary works?
• Is it ethical for museums to keep indigenous artifacts?
• Should digital designs be considered an art form? 
• Should abstract art be considered an art form?
• Is music therapy effective?
• Should tattoos be regarded as “professional dress” for work?
• Should schools place greater emphasis on the arts programs?
• Should euthanasia be allowed in hospitals and other clinical settings?
• Should the government support and implement universal healthcare?
• Would obesity rates lower if the government intervened to make healthy foods more affordable?
• Should teenagers be given access to birth control pills without parental consent?
• Should food allergies be considered a disease?
• Should health insurance cover homeopathic medicine?
• Is using painkillers healthy?
• Should genetically modified foods be banned?
• Should there be a tax on unhealthy foods?
• Should tobacco products be banned from the country?
• Should the birth control pill be free for everyone?

If you need more help brainstorming topics, especially those that are personalized to your interests, you can  use CollegeVine’s free AI tutor, Ivy . Ivy can help you come up with original persuasive speech ideas, and she can also help with the rest of your homework, from math to languages.

Do Your Research

A great persuasive speech is supported with plenty of well-researched facts and evidence. So before you begin the writing process, research both sides of the topic you’re presenting in-depth to gain a well-rounded perspective of the topic.

Understand Your Audience

It’s critical to understand your audience to deliver a great persuasive speech. After all, you are trying to convince them that your viewpoint is correct. Before writing your speech, consider the facts and information that your audience may already know, and think about the beliefs and concerns they may have about your topic. Then, address these concerns in your speech, and be mindful to include fresh, new information.

Have Someone Read Your Speech

Once you have finished writing your speech, have someone read it to check for areas of strength and improvement. You can use CollegeVine’s free essay review tool to get feedback on your speech from a peer!

Practice Makes Perfect

After completing your final draft, the key to success is to practice. Present your speech out loud in front of a mirror, your family, friends, and basically, anyone who will listen. Not only will the feedback of others help you to make your speech better, but you’ll become more confident in your presentation skills and may even be able to commit your speech to memory.

Hopefully, these ideas have inspired you to write a powerful, unique persuasive speech. With the perfect topic, plenty of practice, and a boost of self-confidence, we know you’ll impress your audience with a remarkable speech!

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

• Presidential Search
• Editor's Pick

‘That’s the Miracle’: OpenAI CEO Sam Altman Talks Undergrad Years, Future of AI at Harvard Event

Harvard Corporation Discusses Gay’s Testimony, Donor Revolt in FAS Town Hall

Harvard Hall Final Exam Locations Changed as Harvard Yard Encampment Enters Second Week

Amid Encampment, Cambridge City Council Discusses Resolution Supporting Student Right to Protest

Harvard Corporation to Review Presidential Search Process as Faculty Demand Transparency

What To Do When People Use Free Speech Poorly

In my last article , I distinguished between impermissible and permissible speech and, within the second category, between good and bad speech. In today’s, I discuss the category that has perhaps caused colleges the most trouble: speech that is permissible but bad.

Permissible but bad speech is like peeing in the swimming pool — it doesn’t break the law, but it violates the norm of respect for others. On college campuses, impermissible speech is met with formal adjudication and sanctions. But how should we respond to permissible but bad speech? At some level we would all like simply to banish what’s offensive, and accepting that we cannot is painful. But this does not mean bad speech needs to go unaddressed.

To understand how we ought to respond to permissible but bad speech, we’ll need one more distinction: between administrators, who are responsible for enforcing campus rules, and faculty and staff, who hold pastoral roles and are responsible for students’ learning and well-being. The province of the former is to address impermissible speech; of the latter, to manage permissible but bad speech.

Another important consideration is that bad speech, even when permissible, invariably faces consequences — not from formal sanctions but from social judgments that impact scholarly and professional opportunities and relationships. These judgments are reasonable responses to bad speech acts.

But these informal penalties should have limits. Practices like doxxing, for instance, where students’ private information is published with malicious intent, go much too far. Despite being protected by the First Amendment, this form of “rough justice” — when private individuals take the “law,” so to speak, into their own hands — is unethical, akin to when vigilantes bypass official legal channels to bring justice through physical violence to those whom they consider to have done wrong.

To uphold the University’s commitment to open inquiry, our top administrators must stop vigilante actors.

They can do so partly by doing a good job at holding actual rule-breakers accountable. History teaches that to discourage and constrain vigilante behavior, societies must put in place clear and sound institutional practices to handle any rule violations that may occur. People become more tolerant of vigilante behavior when they are unsure that stable procedures exist to respond to rule violations. Vigilante action is made evidently inappropriate when stable procedures exist for holding people to account, making it easier to shut down.

Administrators must be able to say to vigilante actors: “Back off; we’ve got this. We have a stable and robust set of campus speech rules that appropriately handles anything impermissible.”

Then, when speech is permissible but bad, they must delegate to those with pastoral duties. These faculty and staff should help our students see what is wrong with their speech, learn from it, and embrace a higher standard of speech.

We shouldn’t expect our top administrators, who have the job of enforcing rules, to condemn speakers or speech not violating rules. While they might publicly raise questions as intellectual leaders about the problems of the speech act, far more important is that they task those in pastoral roles with having performance improvement conversations, and communicate clearly to the campus that learning is underway.

One kind of permissible but bad speech to which this approach would apply is problematic classroom conduct. Instructors, even while respecting academic freedom for all in the classroom, can engage in performance improvement conversations with members of a class who speak to each other rudely or disrespectfully, reserving sanctions, of course, for actual instances of harassment or threats.

Faculty advisors can and should also have such conversations with student groups that make bad choices. These conversations should be handled with care, ensuring no public shaming or elements of retaliation, just like performance improvement in the workplace.

Such conversations are best structured in the form of debriefs organized by questions to prompt reflection: Where were our arguments sound or unsound? Where did our emotional understanding of the situation succeed? Where did it fail? What moral judgments did we make? Where did we succeed? Where did we fail? How well did our actions adhere to University values? Where did we fall short?

Mistakes occur when we confuse situations that require sanctions with situations that require pastoral care. These mistakes have occurred frequently this year, such as when University President Claudine Gay denounced the phrase “from the river to the sea.” This was a moment that required pastoral care, by those with such duties, but received an enforcement action instead.

People in authority often initially withhold judgment on speech that is permissible but bad in order to avoid cases of apparent or actual retaliation, or to avoid chilling speech. This reticence is reasonable.

But then if no response at all seems to be forthcoming, or if permissible and impermissible behavior start to be bundled together, and pressure builds through calls for accountability, there can also be overcorrection in the direction of the condemnatory statement or ill-judged police action. This was the case when Columbia University in April first sought to clear its encampment by suspending students, and thereby converting them into trespassers, without the disciplinary hearing typically required after an allegation of a violation of school policy.

What is needed is clear, simple, and transparent enforcement of campus rules against “violence or harassment directed at individuals or groups,” as the president of the University of Chicago has recently put it , and baton-passing to address anything permissible but bad. Best for administrators with enforcement duties to make clear that those tasked with pastoral duties have responded instead.

The biggest mistake of all, though, is when we assume that speech protections mean there is nothing we can do about permissible but bad speech, and thereby forget the most important thing we need to do: teach.

We should not abandon our students when they err, for if we do, we will have abandoned our mission. And there is so much to teach right now. Students are hungry for lessons about history, antisemitism, Islamophobia, Israel, Palestine, two-state solutions, diverse religious traditions, diverse ideologies, peace-making, conflict transformation, human rights, pluralism, and so on. In fact, because we have neglected to teach our students in these areas, many students are forced to teach themselves.

And at the top of the teaching list? The University’s values: Respect for the rights, differences, and dignity of others; honesty and integrity in all dealings; conscientious pursuit of excellence in our work; accountability for actions and conduct in the community; responsibility for the bonds and bridges that enable all to grow with and learn from one another.

Wartime does not excuse us from the moral obligation to live up to these values — even when the war comes to campus. To the contrary; grief and anger make it harder, but those passions also make it even more urgent to reach for our best selves.

Danielle Allen is the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University and director of the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation.

This piece is the fourth installment in a series that will identify and assess the difficult ethical questions surfaced by Harvard’s recent leadership crisis.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

• Presidential Search
• Editor's Pick

73 Harvard Undergrads Win 2024 Hoopes Prize for Senior Theses

Faculty of Arts and Sciences to Consider Starting Faculty Senate Planning Process

Harvard To Install 3-Foot Barriers During Freshmen Move Out as Yard Remains Occupied

Harvard Extension Student Association Elections Abruptly Postponed Over Alleged Campaign Rules Violations

Some Want the Harvard Corporation to Strip Garber’s Interim Tag. Is That Possible?

What To Do When People Use Free Speech Poorly

In my last article , I distinguished between impermissible and permissible speech and, within the second category, between good and bad speech. In today’s, I discuss the category that has perhaps caused colleges the most trouble: speech that is permissible but bad.

Permissible but bad speech is like peeing in the swimming pool — it doesn’t break the law, but it violates the norm of respect for others. On college campuses, impermissible speech is met with formal adjudication and sanctions. But how should we respond to permissible but bad speech? At some level we would all like simply to banish what’s offensive, and accepting that we cannot is painful. But this does not mean bad speech needs to go unaddressed.

To understand how we ought to respond to permissible but bad speech, we’ll need one more distinction: between administrators, who are responsible for enforcing campus rules, and faculty and staff, who hold pastoral roles and are responsible for students’ learning and well-being. The province of the former is to address impermissible speech; of the latter, to manage permissible but bad speech.

Another important consideration is that bad speech, even when permissible, invariably faces consequences — not from formal sanctions but from social judgments that impact scholarly and professional opportunities and relationships. These judgments are reasonable responses to bad speech acts.

But these informal penalties should have limits. Practices like doxxing, for instance, where students’ private information is published with malicious intent, go much too far. Despite being protected by the First Amendment, this form of “rough justice” — when private individuals take the “law,” so to speak, into their own hands — is unethical, akin to when vigilantes bypass official legal channels to bring justice through physical violence to those whom they consider to have done wrong.

To uphold the University’s commitment to open inquiry, our top administrators must stop vigilante actors.

They can do so partly by doing a good job at holding actual rule-breakers accountable. History teaches that to discourage and constrain vigilante behavior, societies must put in place clear and sound institutional practices to handle any rule violations that may occur. People become more tolerant of vigilante behavior when they are unsure that stable procedures exist to respond to rule violations. Vigilante action is made evidently inappropriate when stable procedures exist for holding people to account, making it easier to shut down.

Administrators must be able to say to vigilante actors: “Back off; we’ve got this. We have a stable and robust set of campus speech rules that appropriately handles anything impermissible.”

Then, when speech is permissible but bad, they must delegate to those with pastoral duties. These faculty and staff should help our students see what is wrong with their speech, learn from it, and embrace a higher standard of speech.

We shouldn’t expect our top administrators, who have the job of enforcing rules, to condemn speakers or speech not violating rules. While they might publicly raise questions as intellectual leaders about the problems of the speech act, far more important is that they task those in pastoral roles with having performance improvement conversations, and communicate clearly to the campus that learning is underway.

One kind of permissible but bad speech to which this approach would apply is problematic classroom conduct. Instructors, even while respecting academic freedom for all in the classroom, can engage in performance improvement conversations with members of a class who speak to each other rudely or disrespectfully, reserving sanctions, of course, for actual instances of harassment or threats.

Faculty advisors can and should also have such conversations with student groups that make bad choices. These conversations should be handled with care, ensuring no public shaming or elements of retaliation, just like performance improvement in the workplace.

Such conversations are best structured in the form of debriefs organized by questions to prompt reflection: Where were our arguments sound or unsound? Where did our emotional understanding of the situation succeed? Where did it fail? What moral judgments did we make? Where did we succeed? Where did we fail? How well did our actions adhere to University values? Where did we fall short?

Mistakes occur when we confuse situations that require sanctions with situations that require pastoral care. These mistakes have occurred frequently this year, such as when University President Claudine Gay denounced the phrase “from the river to the sea.” This was a moment that required pastoral care, by those with such duties, but received an enforcement action instead.

People in authority often initially withhold judgment on speech that is permissible but bad in order to avoid cases of apparent or actual retaliation, or to avoid chilling speech. This reticence is reasonable.

But then if no response at all seems to be forthcoming, or if permissible and impermissible behavior start to be bundled together, and pressure builds through calls for accountability, there can also be overcorrection in the direction of the condemnatory statement or ill-judged police action. This was the case when Columbia University in April first sought to clear its encampment by suspending students, and thereby converting them into trespassers, without the disciplinary hearing typically required after an allegation of a violation of school policy.

What is needed is clear, simple, and transparent enforcement of campus rules against “violence or harassment directed at individuals or groups,” as the president of the University of Chicago has recently put it , and baton-passing to address anything permissible but bad. Best for administrators with enforcement duties to make clear that those tasked with pastoral duties have responded instead.

The biggest mistake of all, though, is when we assume that speech protections mean there is nothing we can do about permissible but bad speech, and thereby forget the most important thing we need to do: teach.

We should not abandon our students when they err, for if we do, we will have abandoned our mission. And there is so much to teach right now. Students are hungry for lessons about history, antisemitism, Islamophobia, Israel, Palestine, two-state solutions, diverse religious traditions, diverse ideologies, peace-making, conflict transformation, human rights, pluralism, and so on. In fact, because we have neglected to teach our students in these areas, many students are forced to teach themselves.

And at the top of the teaching list? The University’s values: Respect for the rights, differences, and dignity of others; honesty and integrity in all dealings; conscientious pursuit of excellence in our work; accountability for actions and conduct in the community; responsibility for the bonds and bridges that enable all to grow with and learn from one another.

Wartime does not excuse us from the moral obligation to live up to these values — even when the war comes to campus. To the contrary; grief and anger make it harder, but those passions also make it even more urgent to reach for our best selves.

Danielle Allen is the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University and director of the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation.

This piece is the fourth installment in a series that will identify and assess the difficult ethical questions surfaced by Harvard’s recent leadership crisis.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Improve your practice.

Enhance your soft skills with a range of award-winning courses.

Examples of Positive and Negative Body Language

February 22, 2022 - Dom Barnard

Communication consists of far more than just the words we say. During our conversations, and even when we’re not speaking at all, our postures, gestures, and facial expressions offer others an additional insight into what we are thinking.

These non-verbal cues continually happen when people interact. They can be both positive and negative and can be knowingly or unconsciously given.

Body language in the workplace

To work effectively with people, it’s important to be able to look past what you hear and to recognize cues in your  colleagues’ body language . It’s also helpful for you to know which examples of body language you display to others, and how these might affect your professional relationships.

• Body Language: Online Course with Examples and Practice

Positive body language

Displaying positive body language can help to strengthen relationships with others, lead them to more willingly trust what you are saying, and allow them to feel respected and heard by you.

Here are some examples of positive body language and what their use can mean.

1. Open hands with palms facing up

If someone makes a gesture of open hands it can indicate that they are open and honest as a person. This gesture can be used to emphasize the importance of what is being said, or simply to show that the person making the gesture is approachable and welcomes other people to speak to them.

Turning the palms to face upwards with the hands open in this way can also indicate submission. Historically, a gesture of open hands showing the palms was intended to demonstrate that no weapons were being carried or concealed. Therefore opening your hands can show that you are not a threat and that you are ready to have a conversation.

2. Standing up straight

Standing up straight shows confidence and self-belief. If you stand up straight people will believe that you are capable in your role and that you know what you’re doing. They will feel more comfortable coming to you for help and may see you as being approachable in general.

When a straight stance is relaxed and is combined with facing openly towards the people you are in conversation with, it demonstrates that you are self-assured and that you are listening to them with respect.

3. Eye contact

Eye contact can be used positively to show confidence, trust and to  promote open conversation . If you regularly look someone in the eye during a conversation it shows that you mean what you are saying. It can also be used as a turn-taking cue to show that you are ready to hear what the other person has to say.

It’s important during conversation to break eye contact at intervals to show that you are respectful and that you do not present a threat.

It is usual to look away more while you are talking and to make more regular direct eye contact when listening to the other person to show that you are being attentive to their thoughts.

4. Nodding or tilting the head to the side

Nodding while someone speaks shows that you are focused on what they are saying and are listening respectfully to them. It can show that you agree with what they are saying or just that you are acknowledging that their thoughts or opinions are valid.

Tilting the head to the side shows again that you are listening attentively and that you are considering what they say with respect, whether you agree or disagree with them. Nodding and tilting the head during conversations are positive and respectful gestures that indicate approachability and openness.

Smiling at someone shows that you are friendly, open, approachable, and likable. It also shows that you like and respect the person you’re smiling at and will help to strengthen both personal and professional relationships.

When you smile at someone it can indicate that you are attentively listening and this can encourage friends or colleagues to be more confident about sharing their opinions or suggestions with you. Of course, the smile should be natural and not come across as nervous or forced.

People who smile genuinely and who come across as being approachable are likely to be more successful working within a team, as they will be regarded as likable and respectful.

People will be more likely to be willing to discuss problems with someone approachable, which will lead to more productive discussions and better resolution of issues.

Negative body language

Negative body language can be damaging for professional and personal relationships as its use can indicate defensive feelings, lack of interest in the other person, or dishonesty.

Negative body language can be used unintentionally and can betray what you think about what you are saying or about the person you’re speaking to. Here are some examples of negative body language to look out for or to try and avoid using with others.

1. Arms crossed

Crossing the arms over the chest is considered a defensive posture. It shows that you are closed off and unwilling to enter into a discussion with someone, almost as if you are drawing a firm line under a conversation or cutting it off before it begins.

This might be because of a lack of confidence in your thoughts or abilities, or it could show that you are unwilling to listen to others.

Someone with crossed arms gives the impression that they disagree with the person they are in conversation with. It shows an unwillingness to have their opinions changed and can make them seem quite unapproachable.

2. Finger or foot-tapping

Tapping the fingers or feet can indicate impatience, boredom, or anxiety on the part of the tapper. If you tap your fingers while having a conversation with someone, they might get the impression that you don’t have time for them, or that you want the discussion to be over.

It can seem that you’re not listening at all. Tapping the feet can give the same impression to others, and it can also lead them to see you as being nervous, jumpy, or lacking in confidence.

Learn how to use body language to improve your professional relationships. Practice what you learn in virtual reality exercises. Learn more about the  body language course .

3. Legs crossed

Crossing the legs, much like crossing the arms, can be perceived as a defensive posture. If someone crosses their legs at the ankles during a conversation, it can indicate dishonesty or insecurity and may lead the person they are speaking with to have difficulty trusting them or having confidence in what they are saying.

Crossing the legs at the knees can also give the impression of a lack of confidence or of being closed off from the conversation.

If the crossed legs are also then pointed away from the other person it can indicate quite a strong discomfort either with the topic of the conversation or with them personally.

4. Avoiding eye contact

While it can appear threatening to maintain continuous eye contact or stare at someone, avoiding eye contact altogether is certainly not a positive gesture. If you avoid eye contact when talking with or working alongside someone, it can indicate that you lack confidence or that you have something to hide.

Avoiding eye contact sends a clear message that you are not open to conversation and that you don’t have respect for or interest in what others might have to say.

5. Frowning

It might seem obvious that frowning is an example of negative body language and should be avoided. However, people often frown without realizing they are doing it, if they are lost in thought or concentrating on what is being said, for example.

It doesn’t necessarily mean they are angry or upset, even though it might look like it. For many people, frowning occurs when they are listening intently, and so is not intended to be negative at all.

It’s therefore important to be aware of your facial expressions and to check in with yourself when you’re listening to others to see if this is something you do.

Bear in mind too that if someone is frowning at you while you are speaking they might not mean to give the impression that they are cross or dislike what you’re saying. They might be very interested in your point of view and be considering it thoughtfully.

Using body language to your advantage

Being aware of body language and facial expressions and what they can mean when interacting with other people is important, both personally and professionally. It’s also worth bearing in mind that somebody language cues differ in their meaning in different cultures and that sometimes it is possible to  misread the meaning behind some gestures .

Understanding the body language cues of others, however, can help you to understand and work with them more effectively, as you’ll be able to see when they might be feeling uncomfortable, for example, or when they are confident in their setting or their relationships.

Being self-aware is also helpful, as you can monitor and adapt your gestures and expressions to make yourself more approachable to others, show them that you respect them, and mark yourself as a good listener and team player. Being knowledgeable about both positive and negative body language cues can certainly work to your advantage.

Good Speech | Bad Speech

• June 3, 1990
• Charles Lawrence ,
• Gerald Gunther
• Spring 1990 – Issue 42
• Cover Story
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share by Email

One person’s freedom of expression may be another’s verbal assault-a dilemma with First Amendment implications. Constitutional law experts Charles Lawrence and Gerald Gunther explore this in the following essays. Note that while the two professors take differing stands, both speak from experience as victims of the kind of “bad speech” at issue. Their arguments were initially framed in the context of an ongoing debate at Stanford University over whether and how the Fundamental Standard for student conduct should be amended. Several other Law School faculty members-including Dean Brest and Professors William Cohen, Thomas Grey, and Robert Rabin-have also contributed to the campus deliberations.

I have, however, a deeply felt apprehension about the resurgence of racial violence and the corresponding increase in the incidence of verbal and symbolic assault and harassment to which blacks and other traditionally excluded groups are subjected. I am troubled by the way the debate has been framed in response to the recent surge of racist incidents on college and university campuses and in response to some universities’ attempts to regulate harassing speech. The problem has been framed as one in which the liberty of free speech is in conflict with the elimination of racism. I believe this has placed the bigot on the moral high ground and fanned the rising flames of racism.

Above all, I am troubled that we have not listened to the real victims – that we have shown so little understanding of their injury, and that we have abandoned those whose race, gender, or sexual orientation continues to make them second-class citizens. It seems to me a very sad irony that the first instinct of civil libertarians has been to challenge even the smallest, most narrowly framed efforts by universities to provide black and other minority students with the protection the Constitution, in my opinion, guarantees them.

The landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education is not a case that we normally think of as a case about speech. But Brown can be broadly read as articulating the principle of equal citizenship. Brown held that segregated schools were inherently unequal because of the message that segregation conveyed: that black children were an untouchable caste, unfit to go to school with white children. If we understand the necessity of eliminating the system of signs and symbols that signal the inferiority of blacks, then we should hesitate before proclaiming that all racist speech that stops short of physical violence must be defended.

University officials who have formulated policies to respond to incidents of racial harassment have been characterized in the press as “thought police,” even though such policies generally do nothing more than impose sanctions against intentional face-to-face insults. Racist speech that takes the form of face to- face insults, catcalls, or other assaultive speech aimed at an individual or small group of persons falls directly within the “fighting words” exception to First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court has held in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that words which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are not protected by the First Amendment.

If the purpose of the First Amendment is to foster the greatest amount of speech, racial insults deserve that purpose. Assaultive racist speech functions as a preemptive strike. The invective is experienced as a blow, not as a proffered idea. And once the blow is struck, a dialogue is unlikely to follow. Racial insults are particularly undeserving of First Amendment protection, because the perpetrator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue but to injure the victim. In most situations, members of minority groups realize that they are likely to lose if they fight back, and are forced to remain silent and submissive.

Courts have held that offensive speech may not be regulated in public forums (such as streets, where the listener may avoid the speech by moving on). But the regulation of otherwise protected speech has been permitted when the speech invades the privacy of the unwilling listener’s home, or when the unwilling listener cannot avoid the speech. Racist posters, fliers, and graffiti in dormitories, bathrooms, and other common living spaces would seem to fall within the reasoning of these cases. Minority students should not be required to remain in their rooms in order to avoid racial insult. Minimally, they should find a safe haven in their dorms and in all other common rooms that are a part of their daily routine.

I would also argue that the university’s responsibility for ensuring that these students receive an equal educational opportunity provides a compelling justification for regulations that ensure them safe passage in all common areas. A minority student should not have to risk becoming the target of racially assaulting speech every time he or she chooses to walk across campus. Regulating vilifying speech that cannot be anticipated or avoided need not preclude announced speeches and rallies – situations that would give minority-group members and their allies the opportunity to organize counter-demonstrations or avoid the speech altogether.

The most commonly advanced argument against the regulation of racist speech proceeds something like this: We recognize that minority groups suffer pain and injury as the result of racist speech, but we must allow this hate mongering for the benefit of society as a whole. Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of our democratic system. It is especially important for minorities, because often it is their only vehicle for rallying support for the redress of their grievances. It will be impossible to formulate a prohibition so precise that it will prevent the racist speech you want to suppress, without catching in the same net all kinds of speech that it would be unconscionable for a democratic society to suppress.

Such arguments seek to strike a balance between our concern, on the one hand, for the continued free flow of ideas and the democratic process dependent on that flow, and, on the other, our desire to further the cause of equality. There can, however, be no meaningful discussion of how we should reconcile our commitment to equality with our commitment to free speech, until it is acknowledged that racist speech inflicts real harm, and that this harm is far from trivial.

To engage in a debate about the First Amendment and racist speech without a full understanding of the nature and extent of that harm is to risk making the First Amendment an instrument of domination rather than a vehicle of liberation. We have not all known the experience of victimization by racist, misogynist, and homophobic speech, nor do we equally share the burden of the harm it inflicts. We are often quick to say that we have heard the cry of the victims when we have not.

The Brown case is again instructive, because it speaks directly to the psychic injury inflicted by racist speech by noting that the symbolic message of segregation affected “the hearts and minds” of Negro children “in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” Racial epithets and harassment often cause deep emotional scarring and feelings of anxiety and fear that pervade every aspect of a victim’s life.

Brown also recognized that black children did not have an equal opportunity to learn and participate in the school community when they bore the additional burden of being subjected to the humiliation and psychic assault contained in the message of segregation. University students bear an analogous burden when they are forced to live and work in an environment where at any moment they may be subjected to denigrating verbal harassment and assault. The same injury was addressed by the Supreme Court when it held that, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual harassment which creates a hostile or abusive work environment violates the ban on sex discrimination in employment.

Carefully drafted university regulations could bar the use of words as assault weapons while at the same time leaving unregulated even the most heinous of ideas provided those ideas are presented at times and places and in manners that provide an opportunity for reasoned rebuttal or escape from immediate insult. The history of the development of the right to free speech has been one of carefully evaluating the importance of free expression and its effects on other important societal interests. We have drawn the line between protected and unprotected speech before without dire results. (Courts have, for example, exempted from the protection of the First Amendment obscene speech and speech that disseminates official secrets, defames or libels another person, or is used to form a conspiracy or monopoly.)

Blacks and other people of color are skeptical about the argument that even the most injurious speech must remain unregulated because, in an unregulated marketplace of ideas, the best ones will rise to the top and gain acceptance. Experience tells quite the opposite. People of color have seen too many demagogues elected by appealing to America’s racism, and too many sympathetic politicians shy away from issues that might brand them as being too closely allied with disparaged groups.

Whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the importance of maintaining societal tolerance for all unpopular speech, we are asking blacks and other subordinated groups to bear the burden for the good of all. We must be careful that the ease with which we strike the balance against the regulation of racist speech is in no way influenced by the fact that the cost will be borne by others. We must be certain that those who will pay that price are fairly represented in our deliberations and that they are heard.

At the core of the argument that we should resist all government regulation of speech is the ideal that the best cure for bad speech is good-that ideas that affirm equality and the worth of all individuals will ultimately prevail. This is an empty ideal unless those of us who would fight racism are vigilant and unequivocal in that fight. We must look for ways to offer assistance and support to students whose speech and political participation are chilled in a climate of racial harassment.

Civil rights lawyers might consider suing on behalf of blacks whose right to an equal education is denied by a university’s failure to ensure a nondiscriminatory educational climate or conditions of employment. We must embark upon the development of a First Amendment jurisprudence grounded in the reality of our history and our contemporary experience. We must think hard about how best to launch legal attacks against the most indefensible forms of hate speech. Good lawyers can create exceptions and narrow interpretations that limit the harm of hate speech without opening the floodgates of censorship.

Everyone concerned with these issues must find ways to engage actively in actions that resist and counter the racist ideas that we would have the First Amendment protect. If we fail in this, the victims of hate speech must rightly assume that we are on the bigots’ side.

I am deeply troubled by current efforts – however well-intentioned -to place new limits on freedom of expression at this and other campuses. Such limits are not only incompatible with the mission and meaning of a university; they also send exactly the wrong message from academia to society as a whole. University campuses should exhibit greater, not less, freedom of expression than prevails in society at large.

Proponents of new limits argue that historic First Amendment rights must be balanced against “Stanford’s commitment to the diversity of ideas and persons.” Clearly, there is ample room and need for vigorous University action to combat racial and other discrimination. But curbing freedom of speech is the wrong way to do so. The proper answer to bad speech is usually more and better speech-not new laws, litigation, and repression.

Lest it be thought that I am insensitive to the pain imposed by expressions of racial or religious hatred, let me say that I have suffered that pain and empathize with others under similar verbal assault. My deep belief in the principles of the First Amendment arises in part from my own experiences.

I received my elementary education in a public school in a very small town in Nazi Germany. There I was subjected to vehement anti-Semitic remarks from my teacher, classmates and others- “Judensau” (Jew pig) was far from the harshest. I can assure you that they hurt.

More generally, I lived in a country where ideological orthodoxy reigned and where the opportunity for dissent was severely limited.

The lesson I have drawn from my childhood in Nazi Germany and my happier adult life in this country is the need to walk the sometimes difficult path of denouncing the bigots’ hateful ideas with all my power, yet at the same time challenging any community’s attempt to suppress hateful ideas by force of law.

Obviously, given my own experience, I do not quarrel with the claim that words can do harm. But I firmly deny that a showing of harm suffices to deny First Amendment protection, and I insist on the elementary First Amendment principle that our Constitution usually protects even offensive, harmful expression.

That is why-at the risk of being thought callous or doctrinaire – I feel compelled to speak out against the attempt by some members of the Stanford community to enlarge the area of forbidden speech under the Fundamental Standard. Such proposals, in my view, seriously undervalue the First Amendment and far too readily endanger its precious content. Limitations on free expression beyond those established by law should be eschewed in an institution committed to diversity and the First Amendment.

In explaining my position, I will avoid extensive legal arguments. Instead, I want to speak from the heart, on the basis of my own background and of my understanding of First Amendment principles-principles supported by an ever larger number of scholars and Supreme Court justices, especially since the days of the Warren Court.

Among the core principles is that any official effort to suppress expression must be viewed with the greatest skepticism and suspicion. Only in very narrow, urgent circumstances should government or similar institutions be permitted to inhibit speech. True, there are certain categories of speech that may be prohibited; but the number and scope of these categories has steadily shrunk over the last fifty years. Face-to-face insults are one such category; incitement to immediate illegal action is another. But opinions expressed in debates and arguments about a wide range of political and social issues should not be suppressed simply because of disagreement with those views, with the content of the expression.

Similarly, speech should not and cannot be banned simply because it is “offensive” to substantial parts or a majority of a community. The refusal to suppress offensive speech is one of the most difficult obligations the free speech principle imposes upon all of us; yet it is also one of the First Amendment’s greatest glories – indeed it is a central test of a community’s commitment to free speech.

The Supreme Court’s 1989 decision to allow flag-burning as a form of political protest, in Texas v. Johnson , warrants careful pondering by all those who continue to advocate campus restraints on “racist speech.” As Justice Brennan’s majority opinion in Johnson reminded, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” In refusing to place flag burning outside the First Amendment, moreover, the Johnson majority insisted (in words especially apt for the “racist speech” debate): “The First Amendment does not guarantee that other concepts virtually sacred to our Nation as a whole- such as the principle that discrimination on the basis of race is odious and destructive -will go unquestioned in the marketplace of ideas. We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the First Amendment.” (Italics added.)

Campus proponents of restricting offensive speech are currently relying for justification on the Supreme Court’s allegedly repeated reiteration that “fighting words” constitute an exception to the First Amendment. Such an exception has indeed been recognized in a number of lower court cases. However, there has only been one case in the history of the Supreme Court in which a majority of the Justices has ever found a statement to be a punishable resort to “fighting words.” That was Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , a nearly fifty-year-old case involving words which would very likely not be found punishable today. More significant is what has happened in the nearly half-century since: Despite repeated appeals to the Supreme Court to recognize the applicability of the “fighting words” exception by affirming challenged convictions, the Court has in every instance refused. One must wonder about the strength of an exception that, while theoretically recognized, has for so long not been found apt in practice. (Moreover, the proposed Stanford rules are not limited to face-to-face insults to an addressee, and thus go well beyond the traditional, albeit fragile, “fighting words” exception.)

The phenomenon of racist and other offensive speech that Stanford now faces is not a new one in the history of the First Amendment. In recent decades, for example, well-meaning but in my view misguided majorities have sought to suppress not only racist speech but also antiwar and antidraft speech, civil rights demonstrators, the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, and left-wing groups.

Typically, it is people on the extremes of the political spectrum (including those who advocate overthrow of our constitutional system and those who would not protect their opponents’ right to dissent were they the majority) who feel the brunt of repression and have found protection in the First Amendment; typically, it is well meaning people in the majority who believe that their “community standards,” their sensibilities, their sense of outrage, justify restraints.

Those in power in a community recurrently seek to repress speech they find abhorrent; and their efforts are understandable human impulses. Yet freedom of expression – and especially the protection of dissident speech, the most important function of the First Amendment-is an anti-majoritarian principle. Is it too much to hope that, especially on a university campus, a majority can be persuaded of the value of freedom of expression and of the resultant need to curb our impulses to repress dissident views?

The principles to which I appeal are not new. They have been expressed, for example, by the most distinguished Supreme Court justices ever since the beginning of the Court’s confrontations with First Amendment issues nearly seventy years ago. These principles are reflected in the words of so imperfect a First Amendment defender as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought-not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

This is the principle most elaborately and eloquently addressed by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, who reminded us that the First Amendment rests on a belief “in the power of reason as applied through public discussion” and therefore bars “silence coerced by law-the argument of force in its worst form.”

This theme, first articulated in dissents, has repeatedly been voiced in majority opinions in more recent decades. It underlies Justice Douglas’s remark in striking down a conviction under a law banning speech that “stirs the public to anger”: “A function of free speech [is] to invite dispute…. Speech is often provocative and challenging. That is why freedom of speech [is ordinarily] protected against censorship or punishment.”

It also underlies Justice William J. Brennan’s comment about our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks”-a comment he followed with a reminder that constitutional protection “does not turn upon the truth, popularity or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.”

These principles underlie as well the repeated insistence by Justice John Marshall Harlan, again in majority opinions, that the mere “inutility or immorality” of a message cannot justify its repression, and that the state may not punish because of “the underlying content of the message.” Moreover, Justice Harlan, in one of the finest First Amendment opinions on the books, noted, in words that Stanford would ignore at its peril at this time:

“The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours….To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord and even offensive utterance. These are, however, within established limits, in truth necessary side effects of the broader enduring values which the process of open debate permits us to achieve. That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense, not a sign of weakness but of strength.”

In this same passage, Justice Harlan warned that a power to ban speech merely because it is offensive is an “inherently boundless” notion, and added that “we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual.” (The Justice made these comments while overturning the conviction of an antiwar protestor for “offensive conduct.” The defendant had worn, in a courthouse corridor, a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft.” It bears noting, in light of the ongoing campus debate, that Justice Harlan’s majority opinion also warned that “we cannot indulge in the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running the substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process.”)

I restate these principles and repeat these words for reasons going far beyond the fact that they are familiar to me as a First Amendment scholar. I believe-in my heart as well as my mind- that these principles and ideals are not only established but right. I hope that the entire Stanford community will seriously reflect upon the risks to free expression, lest we weaken hard-won liberties at Stanford and, by example, in this nation.

17 Freedom of Speech Pros and Cons

When a person or a corporation has the right of the freedom of speech, then they are able to express any opinion without restraint or censorship. This approach to society is a democratic institution which dates back to the ancient Greek culture.

In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech for all people. Through this fundamental right, Americans have the freedom to protest, practice the religion they want, and express opinions without worrying about the government imprisoning them for criticism. It was adopted on December 15, 1971, as part of the Bill of Rights.

As with all modern democracies, even the United States places limits on this freedom. There are specific limits placed on this principle that dictate what people can or cannot say legally. The First Amendment does not specifically say what is or is not protected, but the Supreme Court has ruled that there are some forms which are not allowed.

Here are the freedom of speech pros and cons to consider with this element as part of a democratic society.

List of the Pros of Freedom of Speech

1. Freedom of speech protects each of us from the influence of special interests. When people have power, then they do whatever they can to retain it for as long as possible. That may include a change in the government’s constitution, a shift in a company’s Board of Directors, or the suppression of a minority group that threatens the way of life for the people involved. Having the freedom of speech reduces this power because it allows individuals to express criticism of those who are in power. There is no fear of losing personal freedom with this right because your opinion contributes to the overall conversation.

2. Freedom of speech eliminates compelled actions. When you have the freedom of speech, then the government cannot compel your actions in such a way that you are required to speak a specific message. You stay in control of what you say and how those words are expressed to the rest of society. Even if the government attempts to alter your words to their advantage, you will always have the opportunity to address the situation and correct the “mistakes” that others create in your work.

3. Freedom of speech promotes the free exchange of ideas. When a society operates in an area where free speech is given to all, then there is a more significant exchange of ideas that occur. It becomes almost impossible for those who are in power to suppress truths that they may not want to let out in the open. This process allows for progress to occur because people can learn from the experiences and perspectives of one another without worrying about the dogma of a “Big Brother” element in society, either corporate or government-based.

4. Freedom of speech can expose immoral or unlawful activities. When Edward Snowden decided to leak numerous state secrets to the press, he created an interesting question about the freedom of speech that we are still attempting to resolve in our society. Was such an action inflicting damage against the legitimate actions of the government? Or was the information he offered a way to bring light to actions that the government shouldn’t have been performing in the first place? It is tricky to find the line which exists when you must protect information or protect others. Having this right in society allows us to at least have that conversation.

5. Freedom of speech prevents the requirement to behave specific ways. Some people today might say that any speech which someone finds offensive should be banned. Imagine then that someone became offended by the mention of same-gender marriage – or the opposite, that they were offended by the mention of opposite-gender marriage. Freedom of speech allows people to make up their minds about what to share with others. Some people might be brazen with their approach, but that also means they might not have as many friends because of their attitude.

6. Freedom of speech advances knowledge for a society. When you have a chance to ask questions or share perspectives, then it creates more learning opportunities in society. This right makes it easier for all individuals to make a new discovery, suggest ideas, or exchange information freely without worrying about potential political consequences. Even if some of the ideas do not work after you get to try them, the process of testing contributes to the advancement of society as well. Thomas Edison famously made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at the invention of the light bulb – each idea was a new step toward success.

7. Freedom of speech allows for peaceful changes in society. Some people use their freedom of speech as a way to incite hatred or violence. Others use it as a way to create the potential for peaceful change. Providing facts to individuals while sharing your opinion can persuade them to consider your perspective, even if they do not agree with it at the time. When this is your top priority with this right, then you are less likely as an individual to use violence as a way to create change. Although this process requires patience from all of us to be successful, it will usually get us to where we want to be.

8. Freedom of speech gives us an opportunity to challenge hate. Peter Tatchell is a human-rights activist who suggests that the best way to move forward as a society is to challenge the people who have differing views. He told Index in 2016 this: “Free speech does not mean giving bigots a free pass. It includes the right and moral imperative to challenge, oppose, and protest bigoted views. Bad ideas are most effectively defeated by good ideas, backed by ethics and reason, rather than bans and censorship.

9. Freedom of speech creates resiliency. Although exposing people to hate speech is hurtful and creates fear in some individuals, it also creates a resiliency in the debate. Instead of making your voice louder when confronting these ideas, you are improving your argument. When this action occurs, the action of observation and counter-observation make it possible to create an outcome where progress toward the greater good occurs. When we lack tolerance for differing, uncomfortable opinions, then it weakens the rights that so many people take for granted when there is something that they want to say.

List of the Cons of Freedom of Speech

1. Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to have “all” speech. The concept behind the freedom of speech is that you should be able to express anything in a way that does not create legal consequences for you. Even if your opinion is unsavory, rude, or unpopular, this right gives you the option to express it. In the United States, there are four forms of speech which are not protected under the First Amendment.

• You cannot make an authentic threat against another individual. • It is illegal to defame others, including libel and slander. • You cannot plagiarize any copyrighted material. • It is illegal to share some obscene material, such as child pornography.

If you say something in the United States which insights illegal actions or solicit others to commit a crime, then your speech is not protected by the First Amendment either.

2. Freedom of speech can spread false information. Thanks to the rise of the Internet, the freedom of speech makes it easier for individuals to spread false information and outright lies, but then still pretend that this data is true. Research does not prove that vaccinations increase the risk of autism in children, but you will find “information” online that says this is true. Even though it is protected speech when this right is present, it could also lead to people getting or transmitting a preventable disease. In 2019, over 60 people in Washington and Oregon contracted the measles, with almost all of the cases being unvaccinated children.

3. Freedom of speech can incite violence against other people. People must be held responsible for the personal choices that they make. When someone commits an act of violence against another because they were incited by hate speech to do so, then they made the choice to break the law. The person who created the outcome through the encouragement of their language holds some responsibility here as well. If online radicalization causes people to join ISIS, then shouldn’t political radicalization that causes individuals to attack journalists be treated in the same way?

4. Freedom of speech creates a paradox. When we look at the modern idea that creates the foundation for freedom of speech, it really isn’t free. The government is still dictating some of the things that we can or cannot say. This freedom, and this writer, cannot exist if people are not allowed to make assertions that are distasteful to the majority, even if the statements are hurtful to other people.

5. Freedom of speech can create a mob mentality. In 2012, Oatmeal and FunnyJunk had a dust-up over the use of images that author Matthew Inman did not authorize for distribution. Charles Carreon made a public splash as the attorney for FunnyJunk, which created a back-and-forth which eventually led the Internet to turn against him. In return for those actions, Carreon labeled everyone he thought of as an “instigator” as a “rapeutationist.” When one person offers an opinion that others find to be believable, it creates a mob mentality on both sides of the equation. When this happens, it can destroy a person’s livelihood quickly.

6. Freedom of speech can cause people to endure verbal abuse. Voltaire’s biographer summed up the views of the philosopher like this: “I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” When freedom of speech is treated this way, then it creates a situation where people must endure sexist or racist verbal abuse. Is it really beneficial for society to allow individuals to use derogatory terms for the purpose of causing discomfort?

We already know that there can be poor health outcomes associated with the fear of violence and crime. Dr. Erin Grinshteyn of UCSF conduced an online survey platform that asked students to rate their fear of experiencing 11 different crimes that included physical assault, hate speech, vandalism, and microaggressions among others. Her findings showed that students in racial minority groups feared violence more than Caucasians. Ongoing fear is a risk factor for mental health declines as well.

7. Freedom of speech will eventually polarize society. When people are allowed to express their opinions freely, then it creates three primary outcomes. Some people will agree with the statement, others will disagree, and a middle group won’t care one way or the other. People tend to hang out in circles where others think and feel in similar ways, which means they will gather around like-minded individuals to spend most of their time.

Pew Research found as early as 2014 that 92% of Republicans are to the political right of the median Democrat, while 94% of Democrats were to the left of the median Republican. 36% of GOP supporters even felt that members of the opposite party were a threat to the wellbeing of the country. When there are ideological silos created from free speech, it eventually polarizes society into groups that struggle to get along with each other.

28% of people say that it is important to them to live in a place where most others share their political views. For people who label themselves as “consistently conservative,” that figure rises to 50%, and 63% of that same group says that most of their close friends share their political views.

8. Freedom of speech reduces the desire to compromise. Pew Research also discovered that when people are consistently liberal or conservative with their freedom of speech, their idea of what compromise entails begins to shift. Instead of believing that both sides must have a give-and-take to create an outcome, the definition becomes one in which their side gets what they want while the other side gets as little as possible. This perspective makes it a challenge for society to function because those on each extreme are consistently battling the other extreme because each views themselves as being the superior contributor to society.

A Final Thought on the Pros and Cons of Freedom of Speech

The pros and cons of freedom of speech suggest that there should be some limits in place for the general good of society. Allowing people to say or do whatever they want at any time increases the risk for harm. Do we really want to live in a world where the creation and distribution of child pornography is a protected right?

Once we start deciding “good” and “bad” speech, it opens the door for abuses to occur. That is why the Supreme Court in the United States has worked hard for over 200 years to create rigid definitions of what is helpful and what is harmful. The goal is to allow people to express contrary opinions without the threat of legal reprisal. This structure promotes an exchange of ideas, which then encourages the learning processes for everyone.

How to spot a “Good” Speech Therapist

by Jenny's Speech | Jan 6, 2016 | Uncategorized

The blog post below is taken from Katie Sullivan’s website www.mysweethomeschool.com . When researching information for our Jenny’s Speech Tips I came across this post.  In writing this article Katie draws on her both experience as an SLP and a mother of children who receive speech therapy. I hope you find it informative.

What makes of Good and Bad Speech Therapist

I have been a Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) for 19 years.  I am also the parent of two children with special needs who have received a total of 10 years of weekly speech therapy from other SLPs. In my career so far,  I have had the privilege to work beside and learn from some amazing SLP’s, both women and men. I have also had to work with SLPs who were, in my opinion, quite terrible. So how do you tell a good SLP from a bad SLP? It is not based on age (there are good SLPs who are young/old and bad SLP’s who are young/old) and it is not based solely on experience either. Here’s a few things that I look for when I receive/find/am looking for an SLP for my own two sons:

A good SLP usually exhibits most of these traits:

• Shows up early so they can start the session on time.
• Is prepared.
• Uses various motivators for the session. They see it as their job to engage my child in the activities. You won’t hear them saying “( your child ) just wouldn’t do anything today” but you might hear them say “ I need to work on finding better motivators for your child”. They feel the responsibility of how engaged your child was in the session falls on them, not your child.
• Is professional and drama free.
•  Enjoys children and working with your child. Finds positive things about your child to share with you that you can both build on; even after a “hard” session. You would think that one would be obvious, but I once had a new SLP for the boys tell me the reasons she planned to never have children of her own, and all the reasons she didn’t like kids. We didn’t have her back…
• Is flexible and remembers she/he is there to provide you a service.
• Stays up to date on current therapy techniques by seeking out in-person learning opportunities.
• Knows what she doesn’t know. There have been  times when I have had a new client and I knew with extra training I would be able to stay ahead of my client and be able to provide a treatment with efficacy (good result), even though I did not have a lot of experience with their diagnosis at the time of our first session. There were other times I was asked to see a client and after the first session with the parents I KNEW I was not the best therapist for that job.  Speech pathology is a VAST field and it is just not possible to be truly versed in all the different therapies for all the different diagnoses. Even though there is a shortage of SLPs, If a new-to-you SLP tells you “I don’t know enough about (diagnosis) to properly treat your child”, they just did you a favor… ( and in my humble opinion, the areas of trachs, feeding, stuttering, cochlear implant, hearing loss, and augmentative communication all come to mind as areas when the therapist MUST have either good experience or excellent training (and still have a supervisor available to them if no experience) to adequately and safely provide therapy.
• Will provide you with home program activities that you can do with your child until the next therapy session because she knows that one hour of therapy once a week is not going to “fix” anything without parents doing the heavy lifting the other 6 days of the week. She lets you know at the beginning, the important role you play on your child’s therapy team.
• Explains the “what” but also the “why” of what she is doing. For example: “we worked on blowing bubbles today so that (your child) can improve his lip rounding skills. We are doing this because lip rounding skills are necessary to make his /w/ sound correctly”. There is a LOGICAL chain from the therapy activities she is doing to the end result wanting to be achieved .
• Loves her job

Recent Posts

• 7 Awesome Christmas Songs with Movements for Kids
• Doubts Cloud Son-Rise Program for Autism
• 5 Best Types of Books for Toddlers with Autism
• The Top 5 Ways to Help Your Child’s Speech
• Autism Diagnosis in Tucson ? ( Today )

Recent Comments

• Ellen Hughes on Autism Treatment for 3 year-old [Case Study]
• November 2018
• October 2018
• August 2018
• December 2017
• November 2017
• September 2017
• August 2017
• February 2017
• January 2017
• December 2016
• November 2016
• October 2016
• September 2016
• August 2016
• February 2016
• January 2016
• December 2015
• November 2015
• October 2015
• September 2015
• August 2015
• February 2015
• January 2015
• December 2014
• November 2014
• October 2014
• September 2014
• Clinic News
• Down Syndrome
• Interventions
• Techniques for home
• Uncategorized
• Understanding Development
• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.org

The Harvard Crimson

• Editor's Pick
• Today's Paper

Some Want the Harvard Corporation to Strip Garber’s Interim Tag. Is That Possible?

• Harvard Students Streak Around Encampment in Cheeky Primal Scream Display

• Freshmen Say Noise From Harvard Yard Encampment Not Disruptive, Despite DSO Email

GSAS Student Council Continues Board Nominations, Discusses Transportation Issues

Council Asks City Staff to Launch Municipally-Funded Housing Vouchers Pilot

• ‘Not Going Down Without a Fight’: Harvard Students Decry Queen’s Head Closure

Pro-Palestine Protesters Rally for Rafah, in Support of Arrested Columbia Demonstrators

• What To Do When People Use Free Speech Poorly

{shortcode-ca97e543de08afc89241a4eb352ab77bb504fef1}

In my last article , I distinguished between impermissible and permissible speech and, within the second category, between good and bad speech. In today’s, I discuss the category that has perhaps caused colleges the most trouble: speech that is permissible but bad.

Permissible but bad speech is like peeing in the swimming pool — it doesn’t break the law, but it violates the norm of respect for others. On college campuses, impermissible speech is met with formal adjudication and sanctions. But how should we respond to permissible but bad speech? At some level we would all like simply to banish what’s offensive, and accepting that we cannot is painful. But this does not mean bad speech needs to go unaddressed.

To understand how we ought to respond to permissible but bad speech, we’ll need one more distinction: between administrators, who are responsible for enforcing campus rules, and faculty and staff, who hold pastoral roles and are responsible for students’ learning and well-being. The province of the former is to address impermissible speech; of the latter, to manage permissible but bad speech.

Another important consideration is that bad speech, even when permissible, invariably faces consequences — not from formal sanctions but from social judgments that impact scholarly and professional opportunities and relationships. These judgments are reasonable responses to bad speech acts.

But these informal penalties should have limits. Practices like doxxing, for instance, where students’ private information is published with malicious intent, go much too far. Despite being protected by the First Amendment, this form of “rough justice” — when private individuals take the “law,” so to speak, into their own hands — is unethical, akin to when vigilantes bypass official legal channels to bring justice through physical violence to those whom they consider to have done wrong.

To uphold the University’s commitment to open inquiry, our top administrators must stop vigilante actors.

They can do so partly by doing a good job at holding actual rule-breakers accountable. History teaches that to discourage and constrain vigilante behavior, societies must put in place clear and sound institutional practices to handle any rule violations that may occur. People become more tolerant of vigilante behavior when they are unsure that stable procedures exist to respond to rule violations. Vigilante action is made evidently inappropriate when stable procedures exist for holding people to account, making it easier to shut down.

Administrators must be able to say to vigilante actors: “Back off; we’ve got this. We have a stable and robust set of campus speech rules that appropriately handles anything impermissible.”

Then, when speech is permissible but bad, they must delegate to those with pastoral duties. These faculty and staff should help our students see what is wrong with their speech, learn from it, and embrace a higher standard of speech.

We shouldn’t expect our top administrators, who have the job of enforcing rules, to condemn speakers or speech not violating rules. While they might publicly raise questions as intellectual leaders about the problems of the speech act, far more important is that they task those in pastoral roles with having performance improvement conversations, and communicate clearly to the campus that learning is underway.

One kind of permissible but bad speech to which this approach would apply is problematic classroom conduct. Instructors, even while respecting academic freedom for all in the classroom, can engage in performance improvement conversations with members of a class who speak to each other rudely or disrespectfully, reserving sanctions, of course, for actual instances of harassment or threats.

Faculty advisors can and should also have such conversations with student groups that make bad choices. These conversations should be handled with care, ensuring no public shaming or elements of retaliation, just like performance improvement in the workplace.

Such conversations are best structured in the form of debriefs organized by questions to prompt reflection: Where were our arguments sound or unsound? Where did our emotional understanding of the situation succeed? Where did it fail? What moral judgments did we make? Where did we succeed? Where did we fail? How well did our actions adhere to University values? Where did we fall short?

Mistakes occur when we confuse situations that require sanctions with situations that require pastoral care. These mistakes have occurred frequently this year, such as when University President Claudine Gay denounced the phrase “from the river to the sea.” This was a moment that required pastoral care, by those with such duties, but received an enforcement action instead.

People in authority often initially withhold judgment on speech that is permissible but bad in order to avoid cases of apparent or actual retaliation, or to avoid chilling speech. This reticence is reasonable.

But then if no response at all seems to be forthcoming, or if permissible and impermissible behavior start to be bundled together, and pressure builds through calls for accountability, there can also be overcorrection in the direction of the condemnatory statement or ill-judged police action. This was the case when Columbia University in April first sought to clear its encampment by suspending students, and thereby converting them into trespassers, without the disciplinary hearing typically required after an allegation of a violation of school policy.

What is needed is clear, simple, and transparent enforcement of campus rules against “violence or harassment directed at individuals or groups,” as the president of the University of Chicago has recently put it , and baton-passing to address anything permissible but bad. Best for administrators with enforcement duties to make clear that those tasked with pastoral duties have responded instead.

The biggest mistake of all, though, is when we assume that speech protections mean there is nothing we can do about permissible but bad speech, and thereby forget the most important thing we need to do: teach.

We should not abandon our students when they err, for if we do, we will have abandoned our mission. And there is so much to teach right now. Students are hungry for lessons about history, antisemitism, Islamophobia, Israel, Palestine, two-state solutions, diverse religious traditions, diverse ideologies, peace-making, conflict transformation, human rights, pluralism, and so on. In fact, because we have neglected to teach our students in these areas, many students are forced to teach themselves.

And at the top of the teaching list? The University’s values: Respect for the rights, differences, and dignity of others; honesty and integrity in all dealings; conscientious pursuit of excellence in our work; accountability for actions and conduct in the community; responsibility for the bonds and bridges that enable all to grow with and learn from one another.

Wartime does not excuse us from the moral obligation to live up to these values — even when the war comes to campus. To the contrary; grief and anger make it harder, but those passions also make it even more urgent to reach for our best selves.

Danielle Allen is the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University and director of the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation.

This piece is the fourth installment in a series that will identify and assess the difficult ethical questions surfaced by Harvard’s recent leadership crisis.

Read more in Opinion

• Harvard Corporation Discusses Gay’s Testimony, Donor Revolt in FAS Town Hall

Popular Videos

Beacon Street Takes the Stage at Harvard's Yardfest

Student Perspectives From the Pro-Palestine Harvard Yard Encampment

Pro-Palestine Protesters Begin Encampment in Harvard Yard

From our advertisers.

Check out our top picks for innovative apps like Cash App, Grammarly, Paradigm, and more — designed to make your life more convenient, productive and enjoyable!

With a consistently competitive pool of applicants submitting essays to top medical schools each year, it is essential to gain a high-level understanding of what a successful application reads like. Browse through our list of successful medical school applications below from students who were accepted to elite universities and hear from expert college consultants on what made these pieces a success.

In this article, Val Misra, Mr. MBA®, will break down the often stressful and challenging college application process and provide professional, practical advice for students and parents. After all, Val was once an ambitious high school student applying to his dream Finance school in NYC, NYU Stern School of Business.

Innovation in Taiwan is just one shining example of the ever-changing landscape of technological advancements happening around the world. However, Taiwan is unique—despite its small size, it boasts a history of being a powerhouse in hardware.

It’s the season of loving, of friendship, and of romantic rendezvous. Love is in the air at Harvard University, and there is no reason why everybody should not be a part of that love too!

House passes antisemitism bill over complaints from First Amendment advocates

Critics argue the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which gained overwhelming GOP and Democratic support, is an effort to silence criticism of Israel

House Republicans are seeking to unite their unruly majority around an evergreen conservative cause, devising a strict response to the wave of pro-Palestinian protests that have roiled college campuses across the country in recent weeks.

GOP leaders this week announced plans for new oversight investigations of elite universities where — in the words of House Republican Whip Tom Emmer (Minn.) — “pro-terrorist anti-Semites [are] taking over.” And on Wednesday, they passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which its advocates said would empower the federal government to crack down on anti-Israel protests on campuses by codifying a definition of antisemitism that encompasses not just threats against Jews, but also certain criticisms of Israel itself.

“We must give the Department of Education the tools to … hold college administrators accountable for refusing to address antisemitism on their campuses,” said Rep. Michael Lawler (R-N.Y.), the bill’s lead sponsor.

The bill was approved by a vote of 320-91, with a majority of Democrats — 133 — joining Republicans.

College protests over Gaza war

Lawler’s bill — with 61 co-sponsors, including 15 Democrats — would create “a clear definition of antisemitism” in U.S. law that the Education Department could then use to cut off funding to academic institutions found to tolerate such behaviors. The definition, however, has drawn fierce opposition from First Amendment advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union and liberal Democrats, who say it veers sharply into the realm of restricting political views.

It’s unclear what the bill’s prospects are in the Democratic-controlled Senate or how the White House views it. Previous iterations failed to muster sufficient support in Congress, but both its supporters and opponents say the ongoing protests and a rise in antisemitism since Hamas ’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel have injected fresh momentum.

If it does become law, the federal definition of antisemitism, adopted from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance , would include such speech as “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”; “applying double standards” to Israel that are “not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”; and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

The idea is that student-held signs, for example, like those displayed at Columbia University in New York this week, calling for “revolution” or “intifada” — which means “uprising” — would amount to antisemitism under the law. The Education Department, in turn, could then revoke federal research grants and other funding to a university that fails to take punitive action toward students who express such views, the bill’s proponents say.

Several Republicans said opposing Zionism — the political movement to create, and now to preserve, a state for Jews in their biblical homeland — would qualify as antisemitism under the law. Some suggested that even holding a prolonged protest would constitute antisemitism. “The erection of encampments on college campuses isn’t an expression of speech,” Rep. Marcus J. Molinaro (R-N.Y.) said on the House floor Wednesday. “It is a direct threat to Jewish students on college campuses.”

But the “double standards” example and the notion that Nazi comparisons are off-limits in the case of Israel, among other aspects of the definition, are deeply problematic because they’re too broad and present “viewpoint discrimination,” said Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a First Amendment advocacy organization.

“Nowhere else in First Amendment law does it say that you can criticize a certain country up to a certain limit, or else you might risk violating federal anti-discrimination law,” he said.

“The First Amendment allows individuals to criticize every country in the world, including our own” — and that includes comparing other governments to the Nazis, however disturbing many Americans may find that comparison to be, Coward said.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a Jewish lawmaker who has co-sponsored other bills aimed at combating antisemitism and described himself Wednesday as a “deeply committed Zionist,” urged colleagues to reject Lawler’s bill, which he characterized as “misguided” because it “threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech.”

“If this legislation were to become law,” he said, universities wanting to avoid federal investigation “could end up suppressing protected speech criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians,” and students and faculty might be driven to self-censor.

Debate on the House floor grew heated at times, as both sides accused the other of neglecting American values in favor of politics. Pro-Palestinian campus protests have included Jewish participants, and some Democrats noted that several liberal Jewish groups oppose the bill, in addition to the man who authored the antisemitism definition for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

Republicans pointed to incidents of violence and destruction, exaggerating some — such as a report by a Jewish student at Yale who said she was “ jabbed ” in the eye by a pro-Palestinian protester bearing a Palestinian flag. According to irate lawmakers on the House floor this week, the student, who appeared uninjured when she spoke to CBS News, had been “stabbed in the eye.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), a centrist Democrat who co-sponsored the legislation with Lawler, pushed back on his colleagues’ free speech concerns, saying he “ensured” the bill “protects the First Amendment” because that is important to him. “It allows criticism of Israel,” he said. “It doesn’t allow calls for the destruction or elimination of the Jewish state.”

Opposing elite, often left-leaning universities has for years been a popular rallying cry for Republicans, and it could prove even more so in an election year in which intraparty tension over how to handle the war in Ukraine and other national security policy questions has slowed congressional action in other areas. The antisemitism bill and college oversight efforts allow conservatives to demonstrate moral clarity in support of Israel while spotlighting divisions among Democrats.

“What Republicans seem to be doing is bringing forward things that they hope will divide us,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters this week, noting that several liberal Jewish groups oppose the measure because the definition of antisemitism is so broad. “So why would you do that, except if you want to weaponize antisemitism and you want to use it as a political ploy?”

Polls have shown the American public has grown uncomfortable and divided over U.S.-Israel policy in the six-plus months since Hamas waged a devastating cross-border terrorist attack on Israel and Israel began its punishing campaign of retaliation, destroying most of the Gaza Strip’s infrastructure and displacing most of its 2.2 million Palestinian residents.

The ongoing Israeli offensive, which has so far killed more than 34,000 people, according to local health authorities, and given rise to famine , has unleashed a furor among liberal college students in particular, who have disrupted classes and shut down campuses in protest, calling for their institutions to divest from funding, investments and partnerships with the state of Israel.

Police in New York arrested some 300 people overnight Wednesday, after officers in riot gear breached a campus building that had been occupied by pro-Palestinian protesters. A separate pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA meanwhile came under attack from counterprotesters, who unleashed fireworks and chemical sprays at the student activists, igniting clashes and a fierce rebuke from the campus newspaper’s editorial board.

Many liberals have called for police restraint and for university administrators to respect a long-standing tradition of campus activism, including antiwar movements. Democrats who oppose Lawler’s bill also called the Republican effort to crack down on antisemitism disingenuous and hypocritical, pointing to Republicans’ frequent defense of free speech — and condemnation of liberals’ “cancel culture” — in other contexts.

“How dare the party of Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene come down here and lecture Democrats about antisemitism,” Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.) said on the House floor Tuesday. “Remember, the leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, dines with Holocaust deniers , and said there were ‘ fine people on both sides ’ at a rally where white supremacists chanted ‘Jews will not replace us.’”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said she opposed the bill because she was concerned it could be used to persecute Christians who claim the Jews killed Jesus — a belief that is regarded by many Jews as an antisemitic trope. “Antisemitism is wrong,” she wrote on X on Wednesday, adding that she would not vote for the law because it “could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.”

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) urged Democrats to back an alternative, also bipartisan antisemitism measure introduced in the House by Rep. Kathy Manning (D-N.C.) that would establish new positions focused on antisemitism at the White House and the Education Department and require federal law enforcement to conduct an annual threat analysis of antisemitism in America.

Mariana Alfaro contributed to this report.

Israel-Gaza war

The Israel-Gaza war has gone on for six months, and tensions have spilled into the surrounding region .

The war: On Oct. 7, Hamas militants launched an unprecedented cross-border attack on Israel that included the taking of civilian hostages at a music festival . (See photos and videos of how the deadly assault unfolded ). Israel declared war on Hamas in response, launching a ground invasion that fueled the biggest displacement in the region since Israel’s creation in 1948 .

Gaza crisis: In the Gaza Strip, Israel has waged one of this century’s most destructive wars , killing tens of thousands and plunging at least half of the population into “ famine-like conditions. ” For months, Israel has resisted pressure from Western allies to allow more humanitarian aid into the enclave .

U.S. involvement: Despite tensions between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some U.S. politicians , including President Biden, the United States supports Israel with weapons , funds aid packages , and has vetoed or abstained from the United Nations’ cease-fire resolutions.

History: The roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and mistrust are deep and complex, predating the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 . Read more on the history of the Gaza Strip .

• Six months of the Israel-Gaza war: A timeline of key moments April 7, 2024 Six months of the Israel-Gaza war: A timeline of key moments April 7, 2024
• Colombia is the latest and largest country to sever ties with Israel May 1, 2024 Colombia is the latest and largest country to sever ties with Israel May 1, 2024
• Hamas touts ‘positive spirit’ in cease-fire talks, will travel to Cairo May 2, 2024 Hamas touts ‘positive spirit’ in cease-fire talks, will travel to Cairo May 2, 2024

Grounded PS5 Review – Buggy, In a Good Way

Mark steighner, grounded ps5 review.

In retrospect, it seems like a no-brainer. Take a Honey, I Shrunk the Kids narrative and bolt it to survival crafting mechanics. It may be obvious in hindsight, but it took developer Obsidian’s Grounded a couple of years in early access before the game was ready for release. After living for two years as an Xbox/PC exclusive, Grounded has landed on PS5 and other consoles. Happily, Sony and Nintendo fanboys and girls can join the fun and see what all the well-deserved fuss was about.

Down to Size Adventuring

You can read COGconnected’s original review here . Grounded has a more than serviceable story. You play as one of four kids who have been inadvertently miniaturized and must survive in the suburban backyard jungle. The goal, of course, is escape and a return to normal size. This is where the game’s surprisingly deep survival, crafting, and combat mechanics come in.

The first thing you’ll notice is just how smartly the game has taken the miniature world and applied it to familiar RPG mechanics. Ant tunnels become danger-filled caves. Small garden pools become lakes. Discarded devices like Walkman tape decks provide life-saving technology and shelter. There are too many cool little ideas to mention, like being able to farm aphids for food or noticing how a small backyard has become a sprawling, open world map.

Let’s not overlook that, maybe for the first time in RPG history, it makes logical sense to battle giant wolf spiders. Not to mention ants, wasps, and small mammals. For the arachnophobes, there are accessibility settings to reduce the realism. For all its family-friendly vibes, Grounded doesn’t shy away from enemies lurking in the shadows, the threat of starvation, or challenging combat. Something to consider before handing the controller over to very young kids.

Have It Your Way

Played solo, Grounded can be a pretty difficult game. It takes a long time to learn the game’s mechanics and climb the tech tree. That’s not to suggest that it’s opaque or poorly designed, but the early hours require some patient grinding. Played in co-op, the experience transforms into the game it was probably meant to be. The new console releases support cross-play with Xbox and PC, so your friends with those versions can join you.

But the narrative mode isn’t the only way to experience Grounded. You can also play in creative or custom modes that focus more on crafting and survival. There are many ways to tailor Grounded’s challenge. You can take a very exacting and danger-filled game and dial it back to a chill crafting and exploration-focused good time. While the character creator is pretty basic, most of your time will probably be spent in first-person mode anyway. Overall, the game’s accessibility settings are quite extensive.

Evergreen Art

Although after four years, Grounded’s graphics are slightly showing their age, the game’s cartoony, Pixar-style realism still looks great. Everything is vibrant, colorful, and detailed. A lot of attention has been paid to insect authenticity, not just visually, but in terms of habitats, behavior, and relationships to other life in the environment. The game’s story and acting are good, though the world and its challenges take center stage.

Environmental audio carries quite a bit of responsibility in selling the miniature world. After all, who really knows what aphids chomping on grass sounds like? The game’s music is a bit understated but what you’d expect. It’s by turns gentle, tuneful, or ominous.

Still a Winner

Making its way to PS5 and Switch, it’s only a little disappointing that Grounded didn’t bring along a lot of new content, though it does include all updates, new ant queens, and a new game+ mode. Grounded is still an excellent and unique survival game. Its big-world crafting RPG mechanics scale down to miniature size quite well and there are a ton of ways to make the game your own. Like their PC and Xbox counterparts, Sony and Nintendo fans of the survival/crafting genre will not be disappointed by Grounded.

***PS5 code provided by the publisher for review***

• Clever gameplay and world
• Beautiful environments
• Fun co-op survival
• Lots of customization
• Not much new content for PS5 or Switch
• Can be challenging

Developer: Obsidian Entertainment

Publisher: Xbox Game Studios

Related Posts

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

The Crackdown on Student Protesters

Columbia university is at the center of a growing showdown over the war in gaza and the limits of free speech..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

[TRAIN SCREECHING]

Well, you can hear the helicopter circling. This is Asthaa Chaturvedi. I’m a producer with “The Daily.” Just walked out of the 116 Street Station. It’s the main station for Columbia’s Morningside Heights campus. And it’s day seven of the Gaza solidarity encampment, where a hundred students were arrested last Thursday.

So on one side of Broadway, you see camera crews. You see NYPD officers all lined up. There’s barricades, steel barricades, caution tape. This is normally a completely open campus. And I’m able to — all members of the public, you’re able to walk through.

[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]

Looks like international media is here.

Have your IDs out. Have your IDs out.

Students lining up to swipe in to get access to the University. ID required for entry.

Swipe your ID, please.

Hi, how are you, officer? We’re journalists with “The New York Times.”

You’re not going to get in, all right? I’m sorry.

Hi. Can I help please?

Yeah, it’s total lockdown here at Columbia.

Please have your IDs out ready to swipe.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.” Today, the story of how Columbia University has become the epicenter of a growing showdown between student protesters, college administrators, and Congress over the war in Gaza and the limits of free speech. I spoke with my colleague, Nick Fandos.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

It’s Thursday, April 25.

Nick, if we rewind the clock a few months, we end up at a moment where students at several of the country’s best known universities are protesting Israel’s response to the October 7 attacks, its approach to a war in Gaza. At times, those protests are happening peacefully, at times with rhetoric that is inflammatory. And the result is that the leaders of those universities land before Congress. But the president of Columbia University, which is the subject we’re going to be talking about today, is not one of the leaders who shows up for that testimony.

That’s right. So the House Education Committee has been watching all these protests on campus. And the Republican Chairwoman decides, I’m going to open an investigation, look at how these administrations are handling it, because it doesn’t look good from where I sit. And the House last winter invites the leaders of several of these elite schools, Harvard, Penn, MIT, and Columbia, to come and testify in Washington on Capitol Hill before Congress.

Now, the President of Columbia has what turns out to be a very well-timed, pre-planned trip to go overseas and speak at an international climate conference. So Minouche Shafik isn’t going to be there. So instead, the presidents of Harvard, and Penn, and MIT show up. And it turned out to be a disaster for these universities.

They were asked very pointed questions about the kind of speech taking place on their campuses, and they gave really convoluted academic answers back that just baffled the committee. But there was one question that really embodied the kind of disconnect between the Committee — And it wasn’t just Republicans, Republicans and Democrats on the Committee — and these college presidents. And that’s when they were asked a hypothetical.

Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?

If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.

And two of the presidents, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Elizabeth Magill of the University of Pennsylvania, they’re unwilling to say in this really kind of intense back and forth that this speech would constitute a violation of their rules.

It can be, depending on the context.

What’s the context?

Targeted at an individual. Is it pervasive?

It’s targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them?

And it sets off a firestorm.

It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes. And this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.

Members of Congress start calling for their resignations. Alumni are really, really ticked off. Trustees of the University start to wonder, I don’t know that these leaders really have got this under control. And eventually, both of them lose their jobs in a really high profile way.

Right. And as you’ve hinted at, for somewhat peculiar scheduling reasons, Columbia’s President escapes this disaster of a hearing in what has to be regarded as the best timing in the history of the American Academy.

Yeah, exactly. And Columbia is watching all this play out. And I think their first response was relief that she was not in that chair, but also a recognition that, sooner or later, their turn was going to come back around and they were going to have to sit before Congress.

Why were they so certain that they would probably end up before Congress and that this wasn’t a case of completely dodging a bullet?

Well, they remain under investigation by the committee. But also, as the winter wears on, all the same intense protests just continue unabated. So in many ways, Columbia’s like these other campuses. But in some ways, it’s even more intense. This is a university that has both one of the largest Jewish student populations of any of its peers. But it also has a large Arab and Muslim student population, a big Middle Eastern studies program. It has a dual degree program in Tel Aviv.

And it’s a university on top of all that that has a real history of activism dating back to the 1960s. So when students are recruited or choose to come to Columbia, they’re actively opting into a campus that prides itself on being an activist community. It’s in the middle of New York City. It’s a global place. They consider the city and the world, really, like a classroom to Columbia.

In other words, if any campus was going to be a hotbed of protest and debate over this conflict, it was going to be Columbia University.

Exactly. And when this spring rolls around, the stars finally align. And the same congressional committee issues another invitation to Minouche Shafik, Columbia’s President, to come and testify. And this time, she has no excuse to say no.

But presumably, she is well aware of exactly what testifying before this committee entails and is highly prepared.

Columbia knew this moment was coming. They spent months preparing for this hearing. They brought in outside consultants, crisis communicators, experts on anti-Semitism. The weekend before the hearing, she actually travels down to Washington to hole up in a war room, where she starts preparing her testimony with mock questioners and testy exchanges to prep her for this. And she’s very clear on what she wants to try to do.

Where her counterparts had gone before the committee a few months before and looked aloof, she wanted to project humility and competence, to say, I know that there’s an issue on my campus right now with some of these protests veering off into anti-Semitic incidents. But I’m getting that under control. I’m taking steps in good faith to make sure that we restore order to this campus, while allowing people to express themselves freely as well.

So then the day of her actual testimony arrives. And just walk us through how it goes.

The Committee on Education and Workforce will come to order. I note that —

So Wednesday morning rolls around. And President Shafik sits at the witness stand with two of her trustees and the head of Columbia’s new anti-Semitism task force.

Columbia stands guilty of gross negligence at best and at worst has become a platform for those supporting terrorism and violence against the Jewish people.

And right off the bat, they’re put through a pretty humbling litany of some of the worst hits of what’s been happening on campus.

For example, just four days after the harrowing October 7 attack, a former Columbia undergraduate beat an Israeli student with a stick.

The Republican Chairwoman of the Committee, Virginia Foxx, starts reminding her that there was a student who was actually hit with a stick on campus. There was another gathering more recently glorifying Hamas and other terrorist organizations, and the kind of chants that have become an everyday chorus on campus, which many Jewish students see as threatening. But when the questioning starts, President Shafik is ready. One of the first ones she gets is the one that tripped up her colleagues.

Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Columbia’s code of conduct, Mr. Greenwald?

And she answers unequivocally.

Dr. Shafik?

Yes, it does.

And, Professor —

That would be a violation of Columbia’s rules. They would be punished.

As President of Columbia, what is it like when you hear chants like, by any means necessary or Intifada Revolution?

I find those chants incredibly distressing. And I wish profoundly that people would not use them on our campus.

And in some of the most interesting exchanges of the hearing, President Shafik actually opens Columbia’s disciplinary books.

We have already suspended 15 students from Columbia. We have six on disciplinary probation. These are more disciplinary actions that have been taken probably in the last decade at Columbia. And —

She talks about the number of students that have been suspended, but also the number of faculty that she’s had removed from the classroom that are being investigated for comments that either violate some of Columbia’s rules or make students uncomfortable. One case in particular really underscores this.

And that’s of a Middle Eastern studies professor named Joseph Massad. He wrote an essay not long after Hamas invaded Israel and killed 1,200 people, according to the Israeli government, where he described that attack with adjectives like awesome. Now, he said they’ve been misinterpreted, but a lot of people have taken offense to those comments.

Ms. Stefanik, you’re recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairwoman. I want to follow up on my colleague, Rep Walberg’s question regarding Professor Joseph Massad. So let me be clear, President —

And so Representative Elise Stefanik, the same Republican who had tripped up Claudine Gay of Harvard and others in the last hearing, really starts digging in to President Shafik about these things at Columbia.

He is still Chair on the website. So has he been terminated as Chair?

Congresswoman, I —

And Shafik’s answers are maybe a little surprising.

— before getting back to you. I can confirm —

I know you confirmed that he was under investigation.

Yes, I can confirm that. But I —

Did you confirm he was still the Chair?

He says that Columbia is taking his case seriously. In fact, he’s under investigation right now.

Well, let me ask you this.

I need to check.

Will you make the commitment to remove him as Chair?

And when Stefanik presses her to commit to removing him from a campus leadership position —

I think that would be — I think — I would — yes. Let me come back with yes. But I think I — I just want to confirm his current status before I write —

We’ll take that as a yes, that you will confirm that he will no longer be chair.

Shafik seems to pause and think and then agree to it on the spot, almost like she is making administrative decisions with or in front of Congress.

Now, we did some reporting after the fact. And it turns out the Professor didn’t even realize he was under investigation. So he’s learning about this from the hearing too. So what this all adds up to, I think, is a performance so in line with what the lawmakers themselves wanted to hear, that at certain points, these Republicans didn’t quite know what to do with it. They were like the dog that caught the car.

Columbia beats Harvard and UPenn.

One of them, a Republican from Florida, I think at one point even marvelled, well, you beat Harvard and Penn.

Y’all all have done something that they weren’t able to do. You’ve been able to condemn anti-Semitism without using the phrase, it depends on the context. But the —

So Columbia’s president has passed this test before this committee.

Yeah, this big moment that tripped up her predecessors and cost them their jobs, it seems like she has cleared that hurdle and dispatched with the Congressional committee that could have been one of the biggest threats to her presidency.

Without objection, there being no further business, the committee stands adjourned. [BANGS GAVEL]

But back on campus, some of the students and faculty who had been watching the hearing came away with a very different set of conclusions. They saw a president who was so eager to please Republicans in Congress that she was willing to sell out some of the University’s students and faculty and trample on cherished ideas like academic freedom and freedom of expression that have been a bedrock of American higher education for a really long time.

And there was no clearer embodiment of that than what had happened that morning just as President Shafik was going to testify before Congress. A group of students before dawn set up tents in the middle of Columbia’s campus and declared themselves a pro-Palestinian encampment in open defiance of the very rules that Dr. Shafik had put in place to try and get these protests under control.

So these students in real-time are beginning to test some of the things that Columbia’s president has just said before Congress.

Exactly. And so instead of going to celebrate her successful appearance before Congress, Shafik walks out of the hearing room and gets in a black SUV to go right back to that war room, where she’s immediately confronted with a major dilemma. It basically boils down to this, she had just gone before Congress and told them, I’m going to get tough on these protests. And here they were. So either she gets tough and risks inflaming tension on campus or she holds back and does nothing and her words before Congress immediately look hollow.

And what does she decide?

So for the next 24 hours, she tries to negotiate off ramps. She consults with her Deans and the New York Police Department. And it all builds towards an incredibly consequential decision. And that is, for the first time in decades, to call the New York City Police Department onto campus in riot gear and break this thing up, suspend the students involved, and then arrest them.

To essentially eliminate this encampment.

Eliminate the encampment and send a message, this is not going to be tolerated. But in trying to quell the unrest, Shafik actually feeds it. She ends up leaving student protesters and the faculty who support them feeling betrayed and pushes a campus that was already on edge into a full blown crisis.

[SLOW TEMPO MUSIC]

After the break, what all of this has looked like to a student on Columbia’s campus. We’ll be right back.

[PHONE RINGS]

Is this Isabella?

Yes, this is she.

Hi, Isabella. It’s Michael Barbaro from “The Daily.”

Hi. Nice to meet you.

Earlier this week, we called Isabella Ramírez, the Editor in Chief of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, “The Columbia Daily Spectator,” which has been closely tracking both the protests and the University’s response to them since October 7.

So, I mean, in your mind, how do we get to this point? I wonder if you can just briefly describe the key moments that bring us to where we are right now.

Sure. Since October 7, there has certainly been constant escalation in terms of tension on campus. And there have been a variety of moves that I believe have distanced the student body, the faculty, from the University and its administration, specifically the suspension of Columbia’s chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. And that became a huge moment in what was characterized as suppression of pro-Palestinian activism on campus, effectively rendering those groups, quote, unquote, unauthorized.

What was the college’s explanation for that?

They had cited in that suspension a policy which states that a demonstration must be approved within a certain window, and that there must be an advance notice, and that there’s a process for getting an authorized demonstration. But the primary point was this policy that they were referring to, which we later reported, was changed before the suspension.

So it felt a little ad hoc to people?

Yes, it certainly came as a surprise, especially at “Spectator.” We’re nerds of the University in the sense that we are familiar with faculty and University governance. But even to us, we had no idea where this policy was coming from. And this suspension was really the first time that it entered most students’ sphere.

Columbia’s campus is so known for its activism. And so in my time of being a reporter, of being an editor, I’ve overseen several protests. And I’ve never seen Columbia penalize a group for, quote, unquote, not authorizing a protest. So that was certainly, in our minds, unprecedented.

And I believe part of the justification there was, well, this is a different time. And I think that is a reasonable thing to say. But I think a lot of students, they felt it was particularly one-sided, that it was targeting a specific type of speech or a specific type of viewpoint. Although, the University, of course, in its explicit policies, did not outline, and was actually very explicit about not targeting specific viewpoints —

So just to be super clear, it felt to students — and it sounds like, journalistically, it felt to you — that the University was coming down in a uniquely one-sided way against students who were supporting Palestinian rights and may have expressed some frustrations with Israel in that moment.

Yes. Certainly —

Isabella says that this was just the beginning of a really tense period between student protesters and the University. After those two student groups were suspended, campus protests continued. Students made a variety of demands. They asked that the University divest from businesses that profit from Israel’s military operations in Gaza. But instead of making any progress, the protests are met with further crackdown by the University.

And so as Isabella and her colleagues at the college newspaper see it, there’s this overall chilling effect that occurs. Some students become fearful that if they participate in any demonstrations, they’re going to face disciplinary action. So fast forward now to April, when these student protesters learned that President Shafik is headed to Washington for her congressional testimony. It’s at this moment that they set out to build their encampment.

I think there was obviously a lot of intention in timing those two things. I think it’s inherently a critique on a political pressure and this congressional pressure that we saw build up against, of course, Claudine Gay at Harvard and Magill at UPenn. So I think a lot of students and faculty have been frustrated at this idea that there are not only powers at the University that are dictating what’s happening, but there are perhaps external powers that are also guiding the way here in terms of what the University feels like it must do or has to do.

And I think that timing was super crucial. Having the encampment happen on the Wednesday morning of the hearing was an incredible, in some senses, interesting strategy to direct eyes to different places.

All eyes were going to be on Shafik in DC. But now a lot of eyes are on New York. The encampment is set up in the middle of the night slash morning, prior to the hearing. And so what effectively happens is they caught Shafik when she wasn’t on campus, when a lot of senior administration had their resources dedicated to supporting Shafik in DC.

And you have all of those people not necessarily out of commission, but with their focus elsewhere. So the encampment is met with very little resistance at the beginning. There were public safety officers floating around and watching. But at the very beginning hours, I think there was a sense of, we did it.

[CHANTING]: Disclose! Divest! We will not stop! We will not rest. Disclose! Divest! We will not stop!

It would be quite surprising to anybody and an administrator to now suddenly see dozens of tents on this lawn in a way that I think very purposely puts an imagery of, we’re here to stay. As the morning evolved and congressional hearings continued —

Minouche Shafik, open your eyes! Use of force, genocide!

Then we started seeing University delegates that were coming to the encampment saying, you may face disciplinary action for continuing to be here. I think that started around almost — like 9:00 or 10:00 AM, they started handing out these code of conduct violation notices.

Hell no! Hell no! Hell no!

Then there started to be more public safety action and presence. So they started barricading the entrances. The day progressed, there was more threat of discipline. The students became informed that if they continue to stay, they will face potential academic sanctions, potential suspension.

The more they try to silence us, the louder we will be! The more they —

I think a lot of people were like, OK, you’re threatening us with suspension. But so what?

This is about these systems that Minouche Shafik, that the Board of Trustees, that Columbia University is complicit in.

What are you going to do to try to get us out of here? And that was, obviously, promptly answered.

This is the New York State Police Department.

We will not stop!

You are attempting participate in an unauthorized encampment. You will be arrested and charged with trespassing.

My phone blew up, obviously, from the reporters, from the editors, of saying, oh my god, the NYPD is on our campus. And as soon as I saw that, I came out. And I saw a huge crowd of students and affiliates on campus watching the lawns. And as I circled around that crowd, I saw the last end of the New York Police Department pulling away protesters and clearing out the last of the encampment.

[CHANTING]: We love you! We will get justice for you! We see you! We love you! We will get justice for you! We see you! We love you! We will get justice for you! We see you! We love you! We will get justice for you!

It was something truly unimaginable, over 100 students slash other individuals are arrested from our campus, forcefully removed. And although they were suspended, there was a feeling of traumatic event that has just happened to these students, but also this sense of like, OK, the worst of the worst that could have happened to us just happened.

And for those students who maybe couldn’t go back to — into campus, now all of their peers, who were supporters or are in solidarity, are — in some sense, it’s further emboldened. They’re now not just sitting on the lawns for a pro-Palestinian cause, but also for the students, who have endured quite a lot.

So the crackdown, sought by the president and enforced by the NYPD, ends up, you’re saying, becoming a galvanizing force for a broader group of Columbia students than were originally drawn to the idea of ever showing up on the center of campus and protesting?

Yeah, I can certainly speak to the fact that I’ve seen my own peers, friends, or even acquaintances, who weren’t necessarily previously very involved in activism and organizing efforts, suddenly finding themselves involved.

Can I — I just have a question for you, which is all journalism, student journalism or not student journalism, is a first draft of history. And I wonder if we think of this as a historic moment for Columbia, how you imagine it’s going to be remembered.

Yeah, there is no doubt in my mind that this will be a historic moment for Colombia.

I think that this will be remembered as a moment in which the fractures were laid bare. Really, we got to see some of the disunity of the community in ways that I have never really seen it before. And what we’ll be looking to is, where do we go from here? How does Colombia repair? How do we heal from all of this? so That is the big question in terms of what will happen.

Nick, Isabella Ramírez just walked us through what this has all looked like from the perspective of a Columbia student. And from what she could tell, the crackdown ordered by President Shafik did not quell much of anything. It seemed, instead, to really intensify everything on campus. I’m curious what this has looked like for Shafik.

It’s not just the students who are upset. You have faculty, including professors, who are not necessarily sympathetic to the protesters’ view of the war, who are really outraged about what Shafik has done here. They feel that she’s crossed a boundary that hasn’t been crossed on Columbia’s campus in a really long time.

And so you start to hear things by the end of last week like censure, no confidence votes, questions from her own professors about whether or not she can stay in power. So this creates a whole new front for her. And on top of it all, as this is going on, the encampment itself starts to reform tent-by-tent —

— almost in the same place that it was. And Shafik decides that the most important thing she could do is to try and take the temperature down, which means letting the encampment stand. Or in other words, leaning in the other direction. This time, we’re going to let the protesters have their say for a little while longer.

The problem with that is that, over the weekend, a series of images start to emerge from on campus and just off of it of some really troubling anti-Semitic episodes. In one case, a guy holds up a poster in the middle of campus and points it towards a group of Jewish students who are counter protesting. And it says, I’m paraphrasing here, Hamas’ next targets.

I saw an image of that. What it seemed to evoke was the message that Hamas should murder those Jewish students. That’s the way the Jewish students interpreted it.

It’s a pretty straightforward and jarring statement. At the same time, just outside of Columbia’s closed gates —

Stop killing children!

— protestors are showing up from across New York City. It’s hard to tell who’s affiliated with Columbia, who’s not.

Go back to Poland! Go back to Poland!

There’s a video that goes viral of one of them shouting at Jewish students, go back to Poland, go back to Europe.

In other words, a clear message, you’re not welcome here.

Right. In fact, go back to the places where the Holocaust was committed.

Exactly. And this is not representative of the vast majority of the protesters in the encampment, who mostly had been peaceful. They would later hold a Seder, actually, with some of the pro-Palestinian Jewish protesters in their ranks. But those videos are reaching members of Congress, the very same Republicans that Shafik had testified in front of just a few days before. And now they’re looking and saying, you have lost control of your campus, you’ve turned back on your word to us, and you need to resign.

They call for her outright resignation over this.

That’s right. Republicans in New York and across the country began to call for her to step down from her position as president of Columbia.

So Shafik’s dilemma here is pretty extraordinary. She has set up this dynamic where pleasing these members of Congress would probably mean calling in the NYPD all over again to sweep out this encampment, which would mean further alienating and inflaming students and faculty, who are still very upset over the first crackdown. And now both ends of this spectrum, lawmakers in Washington, folks on the Columbia campus, are saying she can’t lead the University over this situation before she’s even made any fateful decision about what to do with this second encampment. Not a good situation.

No. She’s besieged on all sides. For a while, the only thing that she can come up with to offer is for classes to go hybrid for the remainder of the semester.

So students who aren’t feeling safe in this protest environment don’t necessarily have to go to class.

Right. And I think if we zoom out for a second, it’s worth bearing in mind that she tried to choose a different path here than her counterparts at Harvard or Penn. And after all of this, she’s kind of ended up in the exact same thicket, with people calling for her job with the White House, the Mayor of New York City, and others. These are Democrats. Maybe not calling on her to resign quite yet, but saying, I don’t know what’s going on your campus. This does not look good.

That reality, that taking a different tack that was supposed to be full of learnings and lessons from the stumbles of her peers, the fact that didn’t really work suggests that there’s something really intractable going on here. And I wonder how you’re thinking about this intractable situation that’s now arrived on these college campuses.

Well, I don’t think it’s just limited to college campuses. We have seen intense feelings about this conflict play out in Hollywood. We’ve seen them in our politics in all kinds of interesting ways.

In our media.

We’ve seen it in the media. But college campuses, at least in their most idealized form, are something special. They’re a place where students get to go for four years to think in big ways about moral questions, and political questions, and ideas that help shape the world they’re going to spend the rest of their lives in.

And so when you have a question that feels as urgent as this war does for a lot of people, I think it reverberates in an incredibly intense way on those campuses. And there’s something like — I don’t know if it’s quite a contradiction of terms, but there’s a collision of different values at stake. So universities thrive on the ability of students to follow their minds and their voices where they go, to maybe even experiment a little bit and find those things.

But there are also communities that rely on people being able to trust each other and being able to carry out their classes and their academic endeavors as a collective so they can learn from one another. So in this case, that’s all getting scrambled. Students who feel strongly about the Palestinian cause feel like the point is disruption, that something so big, and immediate, and urgent is happening that they need to get in the faces of their professors, and their administrators, and their fellow students.

Right. And set up an encampment in the middle of campus, no matter what the rules say.

Right. And from the administration’s perspective, they say, well, yeah, you can say that and you can think that. And that’s an important process. But maybe there’s some bad apples in your ranks. Or though you may have good intentions, you’re saying things that you don’t realize the implications of. And they’re making this environment unsafe for others. Or they’re grinding our classes to a halt and we’re not able to function as a University.

So the only way we’re going to be able to move forward is if you will respect our rules and we’ll respect your point of view. The problem is that’s just not happening. Something is not connecting with those two points of view. And as if that’s not hard enough, you then have Congress and the political system with its own agenda coming in and putting its thumb on a scale of an already very difficult situation.

Right. And at this very moment, what we know is that the forces that you just outlined have created a dilemma, an uncertainty of how to proceed, not just for President Shafik and the students and faculty at Columbia, but for a growing number of colleges and universities across the country. And by that, I mean, this thing that seemed to start at Columbia is literally spreading.

Absolutely. We’re talking on a Wednesday afternoon. And these encampments have now started cropping up at universities from coast-to-coast, at Harvard and Yale, but also at University of California, at the University of Texas, at smaller campuses in between. And at each of these institutions, there’s presidents and deans, just like President Shafik at Columbia, who are facing a really difficult set of choices. Do they call in the police? The University of Texas in Austin this afternoon, we saw protesters physically clashing with police.

Do they hold back, like at Harvard, where there were dramatic videos of students literally running into Harvard yard with tents. They were popping up in real-time. And so Columbia, really, I think, at the end of the day, may have kicked off some of this. But they are now in league with a whole bunch of other universities that are struggling with the same set of questions. And it’s a set of questions that they’ve had since this war broke out.

And now these schools only have a week or two left of classes. But we don’t know when these standoffs are going to end. We don’t know if students are going to leave campus for the summer. We don’t know if they’re going to come back in the fall and start protesting right away, or if this year is going to turn out to have been an aberration that was a response to a really awful, bloody war, or if we’re at the beginning of a bigger shift on college campuses that will long outlast this war in the Middle East.

Well, Nick, thank you very much. Thanks for having me, Michael.

We’ll be right back.

Here’s what else you need to know today. The United Nations is calling for an independent investigation into two mass graves found after Israeli forces withdrew from hospitals in Gaza. Officials in Gaza said that some of the bodies found in the graves were Palestinians who had been handcuffed or shot in the head and accused Israel of killing and burying them. In response, Israel said that its soldiers had exhumed bodies in one of the graves as part of an effort to locate Israeli hostages.

And on Wednesday, Hamas released a video of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, an Israeli-American dual citizen, whom Hamas has held hostage since October 7. It was the first time that he has been shown alive since his captivity began. His kidnapping was the subject of a “Daily” episode in October that featured his mother, Rachel. In response to Hamas’s video, Rachel issued a video of her own, in which she spoke directly to her son.

And, Hersh, if you can hear this, we heard your voice today for the first time in 201 days. And if you can hear us, I am telling you, we are telling you, we love you. Stay strong. Survive.

Today’s episode was produced by Sydney Harper, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Olivia Natt, Nina Feldman, and Summer Thomad, with help from Michael Simon Johnson. It was edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Chow, contains research help by Susan Lee, original music by Marion Lozano and Dan Powell, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.

• May 2, 2024   •   29:13 Biden Loosens Up on Weed
• May 1, 2024   •   35:16 The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court
• April 30, 2024   •   27:40 The Secret Push That Could Ban TikTok
• April 29, 2024   •   47:53 Trump 2.0: What a Second Trump Presidency Would Bring
• April 26, 2024   •   21:50 Harvey Weinstein Conviction Thrown Out
• April 25, 2024   •   40:33 The Crackdown on Student Protesters
• April 24, 2024   •   32:18 Is $60 Billion Enough to Save Ukraine?
• April 23, 2024   •   30:30 A Salacious Conspiracy or Just 34 Pieces of Paper?
• April 22, 2024   •   24:30 The Evolving Danger of the New Bird Flu
• April 19, 2024   •   30:42 The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness
• April 18, 2024   •   30:07 The Opening Days of Trump’s First Criminal Trial
• April 17, 2024   •   24:52 Are ‘Forever Chemicals’ a Forever Problem?

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Nicholas Fandos

Produced by Sydney Harper ,  Asthaa Chaturvedi ,  Olivia Natt ,  Nina Feldman and Summer Thomad

With Michael Simon Johnson

Edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Chow

Original music by Marion Lozano and Dan Powell

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music

Columbia University has become the epicenter of a growing showdown between student protesters, college administrators and Congress over the war in Gaza and the limits of free speech.

Nicholas Fandos, who covers New York politics and government for The Times, walks us through the intense week at the university. And Isabella Ramírez, the editor in chief of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, explains what it has all looked like to a student on campus.

On today’s episode

Nicholas Fandos , who covers New York politics and government for The New York Times

Isabella Ramírez , editor in chief of The Columbia Daily Spectator

Background reading

Inside the week that shook Columbia University .

The protests at the university continued after more than 100 arrests.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Research help by Susan Lee .

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Nicholas Fandos is a Times reporter covering New York politics and government. More about Nicholas Fandos

Advertisement