speech on education should be free

7 Reasons Why Education Should Be Free

Besides being the cornerstone of success in a society, many barely understand why education should be free. This blog post covers that and more. 

Education is the only mechanism available to you that allows you to shape your life. It is the most powerful weapon you can take up in the fight against ignorance. Unfortunately, it is mostly used as a tool for economic gain. 

The rise in the cost of education is one of the biggest problems to hit our world today. The rising costs make it even harder if you have limited means to get educated and compete with those who can afford it. 

This post views reasons why education should be free, and how it helps develop society while improving your standard of living. 

What is Free Education?

Free education is  education without economic cost , tuition, fees, or other products. You could also define it as one controlled or completely funded by the state, free of charge, or free to all students.

Over the past decade, small but devoted groups of people have worked together to make education accessible to everyone. After all, education should be free because it helps you develop your abilities and take part more in society.

Also, free education means expanded access to education by everyone. So, instead of education being available to certain people based on social status, it expands to everyone to ensure that they can attend for free.

Free schooling should always be available to everyone, not fee-based as with most universities and colleges.

What are the Importance of Free Education?

The idea of free education is growing around the world as more and more people realize the importance of free schooling. Some countries provide free education for their citizens, but it is not as common as it should be.

However, free education helps create a better and more productive future for people around the globe. Also, it provides you with the knowledge needed to succeed and allows you to take on challenges with confidence.

1. Education Empowers People to Be Agents of Change

Education empowers us to be agents of change. It is the only sustainable force for global progress and social justice. It should be free because it is also a human right that goes beyond school.

Quality education also extends to you learning beyond the classroom through life experiences.

Also, education is important to create real, sustainable change in the world. It equips you with knowledge and building capacity for marginalized or oppressed individuals. Access to free education can also make positive changes toward a more fair world.

2. It Will Stop the Brain Drain

Brain drain is the migration of skilled workers from one region to another in search of quality life and better standards of living. This includes better education, higher salaries, better healthcare, access to state-of-the-art technology, and better security.

More educated people will stop the brain drain. The human capital theory describes how knowledge is always of value to everyone. This means that if you have acquired knowledge, you hold more value than an ordinary person. 

Hence, access to free education leads to an increase in skilled workers available in your country. A country with more skilled workers will not suffer from brain drain when some move in search of greener pastures. 

3. It Increases the Choices Available to Learners

Free education increases the choices available to learners and reduces the barriers we currently face. The goal of education should be to free us from a controlled and scheduled curriculum and not to limit or define our thinking and creativity.

4. Education Is a Basic Human Right

Education being a human right is a statement confirming that it should be available to all without restriction due to financial, cultural, linguistic, or gender disparities. 

Also, education is a basic right because it is a form of human capital that facilitates capacity building and opportunities in life. It also allows you to live a fulfilling and productive life.

In modern times, uses of this right may include public literacy programs, public libraries, open universities, and free Internet resources .

What are the Benefits of Free Education?

Education should be free and accessible for every individual.

There’s no better way to have the tools and skills needed to succeed in today’s ever-changing world than through higher education. If the government doesn’t invest in human capital, we will end up with a workforce lacking vital job skills.

Also, an under-educated population will bring down the economy. While educational platforms like Coursera and Udemy help by offering free courses to people, more can be done to make it a reality.

Below are some reasons why access to free education is crucial.

1. Access to Free Education Increases Your Opportunities

By removing the financial barrier to education, everyone can enjoy all the gifts and benefits education can offer. Free education will break the poverty cycle and give people the power to get out of poverty. 

2. It Reduces Inequality

Education should be for everyone, despite your financial position. After all, education contributes to success and equality and increases your chances of prospering in a nation.  

Through free education, you will get the same amount of knowledge as others with higher societal standards. You also won’t have to live with such a big gap between you and those who attend expensive institutions.

3. Free Education Leads to Lower Crime Rates 

The argument that a more educated society has fewer crimes is one of the most popular arguments for free public education.

Studying improves human behavior and reduces government costs on law enforcement. This also means lesser costs on damage repairs caused by criminals.

Also, two-thirds of juvenile crimes are from people who lack a high school diploma or proper education. 

4. Free Education Helps Develop the Economy

Education allows a country to grow economically as it becomes more educated. Education equips you with the skills to work in the job market, from entry-level jobs to higher-paying jobs.

The more skilled labor that exists in a country, the more economic growth that country experiences.

5. Free Education Attracts Tourists 

If education is free in a country, that country records a rise in tourists coming to enjoy the top-notch education system. This in turn leads to diversity and economic growth.

6. It Helps Prevent Conflict 

While education is the key to any nation’s success, the lack of access to education leads to ignorance and the rise of conflicts.

Yet, when proper education is free and available for all, we can better handle social and political problems. It also helps us live together peacefully.

7. Free Education Means More Better-Educated Employees 

Education promotes critical thinking, creative development, public speaking, and resourcefulness. 

These skills help businesses to thrive and develop. So not only does free education create informed workers, but it also creates a higher level of understanding among you and your colleagues. 

Businesses benefit by hiring educated staff who are smarter and more productive than uneducated ones. 

What Are the Challenges Facing Free Education?

Challenges facing the actualization of free learning include inadequate facilities, systematic corruption, and insufficient funding.

Also, inadequate support from the community, negligence from the government, and a high level of insecurity contribute to the challenges faced. 

Free education finance is a long-term problem for governments worldwide. These challenges make it difficult for most countries to effect free schooling in the system, as their attention is usually diverted.

Corruption within the system and among the politicians in power also makes the implementation of free education a hard task to perform.

Ways to tackle the challenges facing free education include:

• Combating corruption in the system.
• By preventing acts of terrorism and insecurity that cause damage to infrastructure.
• Allocating more funds to the education sector.
• By helping communities provide more support to combat illiteracy in society.

Examples of Countries with Free Education Systems 

Ideally, the education system should be fair. The rich should not live a better life through education simply because they can afford it.

There are several countries where you can find free higher education such as:

How does education improve your life?

Education helps you by building your knowledge, improving your abilities, and getting you a good job. It also helps in making a decent living and in bringing an overall improvement in your lifestyle. 

Why is education so expensive?

One key reason is educational bureaucracy.

Modern education models are set up to be extremely bureaucratic with different entities controlling various aspects of education. This can stifle innovation and give rise to corruption at all levels of the ecosystem. 

How does the high cost of education affect your standard of living?

It becomes harder for you to have a complete education when schools charge higher fees. While this might not affect people of higher social status, it affects the common man.

As a result, you may have to take out student loans or work many jobs to pay for your education.

What is the greatest advantage of free education?

The greatest advantage of free education is that it is available to all who need it.

A lot of us are not given the chance to receive higher education due to its high cost. However, if education is available to everyone, everyone would have a shot at getting a good job that pays well. 

Also, as a business owner who is better educated, you make wiser decisions for yourself and your employees.

Your employees will also be more informed about the way they work because of their ability to understand. This means that you and your staff can improve the business, maximize profits, and help people.

Does lack of access to free education lead to poverty?

Yes, the lack of affordable or free education leads to poverty for the majority.

Education is perhaps the cornerstone for both children and adults of the future. Because most parents do not have that much money to pay for their child’s education, a college education is often neglected.

Furthermore, as a result of this inability to afford an education, a good job is out of reach leading to poverty. This is a circumstance that no one deserves.

A lack of proper education means limitations to most high-paying jobs. It also means more turn to a life of crime in other to get a better life.

Education is a powerful and important tool for shaping the world. It empowers you and sets you free, allowing you to do anything you want to do in life.

Unfortunately, education is not currently free in most countries but is a business. And like all businesses, education serves to make money.

Effective education should not be a luxury for the rich, it is a necessity in any society, in any culture, and in any country. Also, education isn’t just a workplace skill—it’s an economic and societal driver. It breeds success and helps families succeed. 

Additionally, education leads to new careers, higher wages, a secure society, innovation, tolerance, better healthcare, improved law enforcement, and much more. 

Finally, free education should not be a charity, but rather an investment in human capital. I believe this will lead to economic growth and societal development.

You should also read more about why education is important to society . You will be convinced of the benefits of free learning if you read this.

I hope you found this post helpful. Thanks for reading. 

You may also like:

• Top 11 Reasons Why Education Is Important to Society
• 10 Major Purposes of Education
• What Is Life Skills Education: Importance, Challenges, & Categories
• Benefits Of Education: Why Education Is Important
• A Guide to Liberal Education

People Also Read:

Why Do Waiters Get Paid So Little [+ How To Make More Money]

Navigating Workplace Norms: Can You Email A Resignation Letter?

Difference Between Roles And Responsibilities

Does Suspension Mean Termination?

Moral Claim: Definition, Significance, Contemporary Issues, & Challenges

Why Can’t You Flush The Toilet After A Drug Test?

Why Education Should Be Free: Exploring the Benefits for a Progressive Society

Written by Dan

Last updated February 13, 2024

The question of whether education, particularly higher education, should be free is a continuing debate marked by a multitude of opinions and perspectives.

Education stands as one of the most powerful tools for personal and societal advancement, and making it accessible to all could have profound impacts on a nation’s economic growth and social fabric.

Proponents of tuition-free education argue that it could create a better-educated workforce, improve the livelihoods of individuals, and contribute to overall economic prosperity.

However, the implementation of such a system carries complexity and considerations that spark considerable discourse among policymakers, educators, and the public.

Related : For more, check out our article on  The #1 Problem In Education  here.

Within the debate on free education lies a range of considerations, including the significant economic benefits it might confer.

A well-educated populace can be the driving force behind innovation, entrepreneurship, and a competitive global stance, according to research.

Moreover, social and cultural benefits are also cited by advocates, who see free higher education as a stepping stone towards greater societal well-being and equality.

Nevertheless, the challenges in implementing free higher education often center around fiscal sustainability, the potential for increased taxes, and the restructuring of existing educational frameworks.

Table of Contents

Key Takeaways

• Free higher education could serve as a critical driver of economic growth and innovation.
• It may contribute to social equality and cultural enrichment across communities.
• Implementation of tuition-free higher education requires careful consideration of economic and structural challenges.

Related : For more, check out our article on  AI In Education  here.

The Economic Benefits of Free Education

Free education carries the potential for significant economic impact, notably by fostering a more qualified workforce and alleviating financial strains associated with higher education.

Boosting the Workforce with Skilled Workers

Free education initiatives can lead to a rise in college enrollment and graduation rates, as seen in various studies and practical implementations.

This translates into a larger pool of skilled workers entering the workforce, which is critical for the sustained growth of the economy. With more educated individuals, industries can innovate faster and remain competitive on a global scale.

The subsequent increase in productivity and creative problem-solving bolsters the country’s economic profile.

Reducing Student Loan Debt and Financial Insecurity

One of the most immediate effects of tuition-free education is the reduction of student loan debt . Students who graduate without the burden of debt have more financial freedom and security, enabling them to contribute economically through higher consumer spending and investments.

This financial relief also means that graduates can potentially enter the housing market earlier and save for retirement, both of which are beneficial for long-term economic stability.

Reducing this financial insecurity not only benefits individual lives but also creates a positive ripple effect throughout the economy.

Related : For more, check out our article on  Teaching For Understanding  here.

Social and Cultural Impacts

Free education stands as a cornerstone for a more equitable society, providing a foundation for individuals to reach their full potential without the barrier of cost.

It fosters an inclusive culture where access to knowledge and the ability to contribute meaningfully to society are viewed as inalienable rights.

Creating Equality and Expanding Choices

Free education mitigates the socioeconomic disparities that often dictate the quality and level of education one can attain.

When tuition fees are eliminated, individuals from lower-income families are afforded the same educational opportunities as their wealthier counterparts, leading to a more level playing field .

Expanding educational access enables all members of society to pursue a wider array of careers and life paths, broadening personal choices and promoting a diverse workforce.

Free Education as a Human Right

Recognizing education as a human right underpins the movement for free education. Human Rights Watch emphasizes that all children should have access to a quality, inclusive, and free education.

This aligns with international agreements and the belief that education is not a privilege but a right that should be safeguarded for all, regardless of one’s socioeconomic status.

Redistributions within society can function to finance the institutions necessary to uphold this right, leading to long-term cultural and social benefits.

Challenges and Considerations for Implementation

Implementing free education systems presents a complex interplay of economic and academic factors. Policymakers must confront these critical issues to develop sustainable and effective programs.

Balancing Funding and Taxpayer Impact

Funding for free education programs primarily depends on the allocation of government resources, which often requires tax adjustments .

Legislators need to strike a balance between providing sufficient funding for education and maintaining a level of taxation that does not overburden the taxpayers .

Studies like those from The Balance provide insight into the economic implications, indicating a need for careful analysis to avoid unintended financial consequences.

Ensuring Quality in Free Higher Education Programs

Merit and quality assurance become paramount in free college programs to ensure that the value of education does not diminish. Programs need structured oversight and performance metrics to maintain high academic standards.

Free college systems, by extending access, may risk over-enrollment, which can strain resources and reduce educational quality if not managed correctly.

Global Perspectives and Trends in Free Education

In the realm of education, several countries have adopted policies to make learning accessible at no cost to the student. These efforts often aim to enhance social mobility and create a more educated workforce.

Case Studies: Argentina and Sweden

Argentina has long upheld the principle of free university education for its citizens. Public universities in Argentina do not charge tuition fees for undergraduate courses, emphasizing the country’s commitment to accessible education.

This policy supports a key tenet of social justice, allowing a wide range of individuals to pursue higher education regardless of their financial situation.

In comparison, Sweden represents a prime example of advanced free education within Europe. Swedish universities offer free education not only to Swedish students but also to those from other countries within the European Union (EU).

For Swedes, this extends to include secondary education, which is also offered at no cost. Sweden’s approach exemplifies a commitment to educational equality and a well-informed citizenry.

International Approaches to Tuition-Free College

Examining the broader international landscape , there are diverse approaches to implementing tuition-free higher education.

For instance, some European countries like Spain have not entirely eliminated tuition fees but have kept them relatively low compared to the global average. These measures still align with the overarching goal of making education more accessible.

In contrast, there have been discussions and proposals in the United States about adopting tuition-free college programs, reflecting a growing global trend.

While the United States has not federally mandated free college education, there are initiatives, such as the Promise Programs, that offer tuition-free community college to eligible students in certain states, showcasing a step towards more inclusive educational opportunities.

Policy and Politics of Tuition-Free Education

The debate surrounding tuition-free education encompasses a complex interplay of bipartisan support and legislative efforts, with community colleges frequently at the policy’s epicenter.

Both ideological and financial considerations shape the trajectory of higher education policy in this context.

Bipartisan Support and Political Challenges

Bipartisan support for tuition-free education emerges from a recognition of community colleges as vital access points for higher education, particularly for lower-income families.

Initiatives such as the College Promise campaign reflect this shared commitment to removing economic barriers to education. However, political challenges persist, with Republicans often skeptical about the long-term feasibility and impact on the federal budget.

Such divisions underscore the politicized nature of the education discourse, situating it as a central issue in policy-making endeavors.

Legislative Framework and Higher Education Policy

The legislative framework for tuition-free education gained momentum under President Biden with the introduction of the American Families Plan .

This plan proposed substantial investments in higher education, particularly aimed at bolstering the role of community colleges. Central to this policy is the pledge to cover up to two years of tuition for eligible students.

The proposal reflects a significant step in reimagining higher education policy, though it requires navigating the intricacies of legislative procedures and fiscally conservative opposition to translate into actionable policy.

Frequently Asked Questions

This section addresses common queries regarding the prospect of free college education, its impact, and practical considerations for implementation.

What are the most compelling arguments for making college education free?

The most compelling arguments for tuition-free college highlight the removal of financial barriers, potential to increase social mobility, and a long-term investment in a more educated workforce , which can lead to economic growth.

How could the government implement free education policies without sacrificing quality?

To implement free education without compromising quality, governments need to ensure sustainable funding, invest in faculty, and enable effective administration. Such measures aim to maintain high standards while extending access.

In countries with free college education, what has been the impact on their economies and societies?

Countries with free college education have observed various impacts, including a more educated populace , increased rates of innovation, and in some instances, stronger economic growth due to a skilled workforce.

How does free education affect the accessibility and inclusivity of higher education?

Free education enhances accessibility and inclusivity by leveling the educational playing field, allowing students from all socioeconomic backgrounds to pursue higher education regardless of their financial capability.

What potential downsides exist to providing free college education to all students?

Potential downsides include the strain on governmental budgets, the risk of oversaturating certain job markets, and the possibility that the value of a degree may diminish if too many people obtain one without a corresponding increase in jobs requiring higher education.

How might free education be funded, and what are the financial implications for taxpayers?

Free education would likely be funded through taxation, and its financial implications for taxpayers could range from increased taxes to reprioritization of existing budget funds. The scale of any potential tax increase would depend on the cost of the education programs and the economic benefits they’re anticipated to produce.

Related Posts

About The Author

I'm Dan Higgins, one of the faces behind The Teaching Couple. With 15 years in the education sector and a decade as a teacher, I've witnessed the highs and lows of school life. Over the years, my passion for supporting fellow teachers and making school more bearable has grown. The Teaching Couple is my platform to share strategies, tips, and insights from my journey. Together, we can shape a better school experience for all.

Join our email list to receive the latest updates.

Add your form here

2 Minute Speech On Education Should Be Free In English

Good morning everyone present here, today I am going to give a speech on education should be free. Because not everyone can afford it, education should be free for all because it is the cornerstone of our successful future. Fees for colleges and universities are too expensive today. Children that wish to learn are unable to do so. This issue affects plenty of families. Parents were distraught and contemplating their options, including how to obtain high-paying employment and avoid disappointing a child.

They entered the workforce at a young age without any training or experience. As you could have guessed, they had no accomplishments. People, therefore, require free education in order to succeed. India’s government must make education free in order to unify and spread the country’s educational system.

Every child has the right to an education, but not every child is born into a stable family. As members of the postmodern age of civilized and educated people, we can do our part by establishing private institutions where we can give the slum kids in our area free instruction. These modest alterations could trigger more significant ones across a wider range.

In addition to allowing private companies to manage educational institutions, the Indian government should offer free education to assist poor families. Wealthy families who want their children to receive a top-notch education can enroll them in private schools. When competing with private firms, government-owned firms would result in high-quality service delivery. Thank you.

Related Posts:

• 4 Signs That A Tutor Is Right For Your Child
• The Child is not Dead Poem by Ingrid Jonker Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English for Students
• Random Idiom Generator
• Common Conversational Phrases in English [List of 939]
• Business Phrases in English for Meetings, Emails and Conversations [List of 372]
• Random Joke of the Day Generator

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Student Loans
• Paying for College

Should College Be Free? The Pros and Cons

Types of Publicly Funded College Tuition Programs

Pros: why college should be free, cons: why college should not be free, what the free college debate means for students, how to cut your college costs now, frequently asked questions (faqs).

damircudic / Getty Images

Americans have been debating the wisdom of free college for decades, and more than 30 states now offer some type of free college program. But it wasn't until 2021 that a nationwide free college program came close to becoming reality, re-energizing a longstanding debate over whether or not free college is a good idea. 

And despite a setback for the free-college advocates, the idea is still in play. The Biden administration's free community college proposal was scrapped from the American Families Plan . But close observers say that similar proposals promoting free community college have drawn solid bipartisan support in the past. "Community colleges are one of the relatively few areas where there's support from both Republicans and Democrats," said Tulane economics professor Douglas N. Harris, who has previously consulted with the Biden administration on free college, in an interview with The Balance. 

To get a sense of the various arguments for and against free college, as well as the potential impacts on U.S. students and taxpayers, The Balance combed through studies investigating the design and implementation of publicly funded free tuition programs and spoke with several higher education policy experts. Here's what we learned about the current debate over free college in the U.S.—and more about how you can cut your college costs or even get free tuition through existing programs.

Key Takeaways

• Research shows free tuition programs encourage more students to attend college and increase graduation rates, which creates a better-educated workforce and higher-earning consumers who can help boost the economy. 
• Some programs are criticized for not paying students’ non-tuition expenses, not benefiting students who need assistance most, or steering students toward community college instead of four-year programs.  
• If you want to find out about free programs in your area, the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education has a searchable database. You’ll find the link further down in this article. 

Before diving into the weeds of the free college debate, it's important to note that not all free college programs are alike. Most publicly funded tuition assistance programs are restricted to the first two years of study, typically at community colleges. Free college programs also vary widely in the ways they’re designed, funded, and structured:

• Last-dollar tuition-free programs : These programs cover any remaining tuition after a student has used up other financial aid , such as Pell Grants. Most state-run free college programs fall into this category. However, these programs don’t typically help with room and board or other expenses.
• First-dollar tuition-free programs : These programs pay for students' tuition upfront, although they’re much rarer than last-dollar programs. Any remaining financial aid that a student receives can then be applied to other expenses, such as books and fees. The California College Promise Grant is a first-dollar program because it waives enrollment fees for eligible students.
• Debt-free programs : These programs pay for all of a student's college expenses , including room and board, guaranteeing that they can graduate debt-free. But they’re also much less common, likely due to their expense.  

Proponents often argue that publicly funded college tuition programs eventually pay for themselves, in part by giving students the tools they need to find better jobs and earn higher incomes than they would with a high school education. The anticipated economic impact, they suggest, should help ease concerns about the costs of public financing education. Here’s a closer look at the arguments for free college programs.

A More Educated Workforce Benefits the Economy

Morley Winograd, President of the Campaign for Free College Tuition, points to the economic and tax benefits that result from the higher wages of college grads. "For government, it means more revenue," said Winograd in an interview with The Balance—the more a person earns, the more they will likely pay in taxes . In addition, "the country's economy gets better because the more skilled the workforce this country has, the better [it’s] able to compete globally." Similarly, local economies benefit from a more highly educated, better-paid workforce because higher earners have more to spend. "That's how the economy grows," Winograd explained, “by increasing disposable income."

According to Harris, the return on a government’s investment in free college can be substantial. "The additional finding of our analysis was that these things seem to consistently pass a cost-benefit analysis," he said. "The benefits seem to be at least double the cost in the long run when we look at the increased college attainment and the earnings that go along with that, relative to the cost and the additional funding and resources that go into them." 

Free College Programs Encourage More Students to Attend

Convincing students from underprivileged backgrounds to take a chance on college can be a challenge, particularly when students are worried about overextending themselves financially. But free college programs tend to have more success in persuading students to consider going, said Winograd, in part because they address students' fears that they can't afford higher education . "People who wouldn't otherwise think that they could go to college, or who think the reason they can't is [that] it's too expensive, [will] stop, pay attention, listen, decide it's an opportunity they want to take advantage of, and enroll," he said.

According to Harris, students also appear to like the certainty and simplicity of the free college message. "They didn't want to have to worry that next year they were not going to have enough money to pay their tuition bill," he said. "They don't know what their finances are going to look like a few months down the road, let alone next year, and it takes a while to get a degree. So that matters." 

Free college programs can also help send "a clear and tangible message" to students and their families that a college education is attainable for them, said Michelle Dimino, an Education Director with Third Way. This kind of messaging is especially important to first-generation and low-income students, she said. 

Free College Increases Graduation Rates and Financial Security

Free tuition programs appear to improve students’ chances of completing college. For example, Harris noted that his research found a meaningful link between free college tuition and higher graduation rates. "What we found is that it did increase college graduation at the two-year college level, so more students graduated than otherwise would have." 

Free college tuition programs also give people a better shot at living a richer, more comfortable life, say advocates. "It's almost an economic necessity to have some college education," noted Winograd. Similar to the way a high school diploma was viewed as crucial in the 20th century, employees are now learning that they need at least two years of college to compete in a global, information-driven economy. "Free community college is a way of making that happen quickly, effectively, and essentially," he explained. 

Free community college isn’t a universally popular idea. While many critics point to the potential costs of funding such programs, others identify issues with the effectiveness and fairness of current attempts to cover students’ college tuition. Here’s a closer look at the concerns about free college programs.

It Would Be Too Expensive

The idea of free community college has come under particular fire from critics who worry about the cost of social spending. Since community colleges aren't nearly as expensive as four-year colleges—often costing thousands of dollars a year—critics argue that individuals can often cover their costs using other forms of financial aid . But, they point out, community college costs would quickly add up when paid for in bulk through a free college program: Biden’s proposed free college plan would have cost $49.6 billion in its first year, according to an analysis from Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Some opponents argue that the funds could be put to better use in other ways, particularly by helping students complete their degrees.

Free College Isn't Really Free

One of the most consistent concerns that people have voiced about free college programs is that they don’t go far enough. Even if a program offers free tuition, students will need to find a way to pay for other college-related expenses , such as books, room and board, transportation, high-speed internet, and, potentially, child care. "Messaging is such a key part of this," said Dimino. Students "may apply or enroll in college, understanding it's going to be free, but then face other unexpected charges along the way." 

It's important for policymakers to consider these factors when designing future free college programs. Otherwise, Dimino and other observers fear that students could potentially wind up worse off if they enroll and invest in attending college and then are forced to drop out due to financial pressures. 

Free College Programs Don’t Help the Students Who Need Them Most

Critics point out that many free college programs are limited by a variety of quirks and restrictions, which can unintentionally shut out deserving students or reward wealthier ones. Most state-funded free college programs are last-dollar programs, which don’t kick in until students have applied financial aid to their tuition. That means these programs offer less support to low-income students who qualify for need-based aid—and more support for higher-income students who don’t.

Community College May Not Be the Best Path for All Students

Some critics also worry that all students will be encouraged to attend community college when some would have been better off at a four-year institution. Four-year colleges tend to have more resources than community colleges and can therefore offer more support to high-need students. 

In addition, some research has shown that students at community colleges are less likely to be academically successful than students at four-year colleges, said Dimino. "Statistically, the data show that there are poorer outcomes for students at community colleges […] such as lower graduation rates and sometimes low transfer rates from two- to four-year schools." 

With Congress focused on other priorities, a nationwide free college program is unlikely to happen anytime soon. However, some states and municipalities offer free tuition programs, so students may be able to access some form of free college, depending on where they live. A good resource is the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education’s searchable database of Promise Programs , which lists more than 100 free community college programs, though the majority are limited to California residents.

In the meantime, school leaders and policymakers may shift their focus to other access and equity interventions for low-income students. For example, higher education experts Eileen Strempel and Stephen Handel published a book in 2021 titled "Beyond Free College: Making Higher Education Work for 21st Century Students." The book argues that policymakers should focus more strongly on college completion, not just college access. "There hasn't been enough laser-focus on how we actually get people to complete their degrees," noted Strempel in an interview with The Balance. 

Rather than just improving access for low-income college students, Strempel and Handel argue that decision-makers should instead look more closely at the social and economic issues that affect students , such as food and housing insecurity, child care, transportation, and personal technology. For example, "If you don't have a computer, you don't have access to your education anymore," said Strempel. "It's like today's pencil."

Saving money on college costs can be challenging, but you can take steps to reduce your cost of living. For example, if you're interested in a college but haven't yet enrolled, pay close attention to where it's located and how much residents typically pay for major expenses, such as housing, utilities, and food. If the college is located in a high-cost area, it could be tough to justify the living expenses you'll incur. Similarly, if you plan to commute, take the time to check gas or public transportation prices and calculate how much you'll likely have to spend per month to go to and from campus several times a week. 

Now that more colleges offer classes online, it may also be worth looking at lower-cost programs in areas that are farther from where you live, particularly if they allow you to graduate without setting foot on campus. Also, check out state and federal financial aid programs that can help you slim down your expenses, or, in some cases, pay for them completely. Finally, look into need-based and merit-based grants and scholarships that can help you cover even more of your expenses. Also, consider applying to no-loan colleges , which promise to help students graduate without going into debt.

Should community college be free?

It’s a big question with varying viewpoints. Supporters of free community college cite the economic contributions of a more educated workforce and the individual benefit of financial security, while critics caution against the potential expense and the inefficiency of last-dollar free college programs. 

What states offer free college?

More than 30 states offer some type of tuition-free college program, including Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington State. The University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education lists over 100 last-dollar community college programs and 16 first-dollar community college programs, though the majority are limited to California residents.

Is there a free college?

There is no such thing as a truly free college education. But some colleges offer free tuition programs for students, and more than 30 states offer some type of tuition-free college program. In addition, students may also want to check out employer-based programs. A number of big employers now offer to pay for their employees' college tuition . Finally, some students may qualify for enough financial aid or scholarships to cover most of their college costs.

Scholarships360. " Which States Offer Tuition-Free Community College? "

The White House. “ Build Back Better Framework ,” see “Bringing Down Costs, Reducing Inflationary Pressures, and Strengthening the Middle Class.”

The White House. “ Fact Sheet: How the Build Back Better Plan Will Create a Better Future for Young Americans ,” see “Education and Workforce Opportunities.”

Coast Community College District. “ California College Promise Grant .”

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. “ The Dollars and Cents of Free College ,” see “Biden’s Free College Plan Would Pay for Itself Within 10 Years.”

Third Way. “ Why Free College Could Increase Inequality .”

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. “ The Dollars and Cents of Free College ,” see “Free-College Programs Have Different Effects on Race and Class Equity.”

University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education. “ College Promise Programs: A Comprehensive Catalog of College Promise Programs in the United States .”

Search Icon

Events See all →

Creating canopy 2024.

Various locations

Earth Week 2024

This is a campuswide week of events, lectures, and volunteer opportunities designed to educate and inspire action related to environmental justice, climate, and nature-based solutions. This year’s theme is Restore & Regenerate.

Take Our Children to Work Day

Excellence in Graduate Teaching Reception

5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.

Penn Graduate Student Center, 3615 Locust Walk

Campus & Community

The importance of free speech on college campuses

Running penn’s committee on open expression has given sigal ben-porath an up-close look at free speech on campus—and even inspired her to write a book on the topic..

Sigal Ben-Porath , a professor at the Graduate School of Education , has been chair of Penn ’s Committee on Open Expression since the 2015-16 academic year, a position that has given her an up-close and personal view of the complications and challenges surrounding free speech, especially in the current, hyper-partisan environment.

Consisting of faculty, staff, and students , the Committee follows Penn’s longstanding Guidelines on Open Expression , which were developed in the 1960s and updated a number of times in subsequent years. Members of the Committee are tasked with upholding the Guidelines and mediating related concerns that are brought before them.

Since the 2015-16 academic year, Sigal Ben-Porath has been chair of Penn’s Committee on Open Expression.

Devotion to an open-minded atmosphere on college campuses has been embraced, by and large, by students and faculty for generations, says Ben-Porath, who both believe freedom of expression is imperative for constructive learning and research. Nonetheless, she says students with diverging ideological leanings differ on how free freedom of speech actually is. Certain students believe the right is nearly absolute; others seek to limit debate or the expression of views on topics they believe fall outside the bounds of reasonable discussion.

Ben-Porath’s work on the Open Expression committee moved her to write the book “Free Speech on Campus.” Published last year by the University of Pennsylvania Press , the manuscript examines the current state of the arguments about free speech on college campuses, using real-world examples to explore the contexts in which conflicts and tensions erupt.

In response to her book, Ben-Porath has been invited to give talks about free speech at a variety of higher education institutions, including community colleges, Ivy League universities, and public institutions, some of whom have set up committees to draft or update guidelines on open expression.

“Free Speech on Campus” was published last year by the University of Pennsylvania Press.

“I think a lot of places are just now waking up to the concern that even if you’re a small place, even if you don’t necessarily see yourself as that visible or your students as necessarily organized in this way, it’s still your problem as well,” she says. “Even if you’re not interested in free speech, free speech is interested in you.”

Administrative awakenings in relation to free speech on college campuses are the result of student activism, and also the fact that universities are a primary target in the current culture wars, Ben-Porath says. University leaders have trepidations about how the higher education sector is perceived. She says where a person stands on the issue of free speech on college campuses is now a marker for a general ideological stance that partisans can use to signal their overall position, similar to how people used to speak about marriage equality.

The most vocal critics accuse universities of being too elitist, lacking ideological diversity, and prioritizing progressive and liberal views.

Commentators and critics point to instances in which conservative speakers have been heckled or prevented from speaking as proof that students at so-called “liberal” universities are too fragile for ideological debate, fail to understand democratic commitments, and are attempting to stifle free speech.

Surveys have shown a more limited support for free speech or First Amendment protections on college campuses, but Ben-Porath says students attempting to limit speech support free speech, but object to free speech being used to harm, denigrate, or devalue another human being.

“This is not being a snowflake, this is being an activist,” she says. “What they are expressing is not oversensitivity that they can’t handle the truth. They are expressing a commitment to the values that we are teaching them and we are not always practicing, like equal dignity to all persons. That doesn’t show fragility, in my view. It actually shows a commitment to democratic values, and we need to listen to that.”

Even if you’re not interested in free speech, free speech is interested in you.

Sigal Ben-Porath, a professor in the Graduate School of Education

Ben-Porath does not support speech codes or the shutting down of speakers—even those who speak hate. Universities as an institution should not invite such speakers, but if a student or a student group is interested in inviting the person to campus, she does not think the school should intervene.

Aside from individuals calling for violence, Ben-Porath says there are very few people who should be prevented from speaking.

“From where I stand, it’s going to be a pretty small marginal group of people, and I won’t expand it, even when there are people who I see and a lot of people see as quite hateful,” she says. “I don’t necessarily want to prevent them from coming to campus because I think that they are, sadly, a part of our current political debate. I regret that, but I would like to support my students in engaging with that.”

Student activists have a large toolkit for responding to speakers they disagree with if they look historically and in present practice, Ben-Porath says. And these tools are much more effective than shutting speakers down. She says students can use humor, as has been done when responding to the anti-gay preachers on Locust Walk. To protest the preachers’ hateful signs, students created their own humorous signs and collected donations for the Attic, an LGBT youth center, while the preachers spoke.

“The Black Graduate and Professional Student Assembly here on campus staged an excellent protest earlier this fall in response to a speaker speaking against the Black Lives Matter movement,” Ben-Porath says. “Excellent in the sense that it was nonviolent, but a very effective protest.” The students dressed in similar fashion, brought signs expressing their opposition, asked the speaker hard questions, and protested outside the venue.

“They engaged with the content and rejected it effectively,” she says. “They engaged with the actual invitation by their presence, by their visible appearance with their clothes and their signs. I thought that was great because they were able to express their opposition, and to express their valid perspective in opposition to her views way more effectively than if they shouted her down.”

Photo: Ben-Porath’s research focuses on citizenship education, normative aspects of educational and social policy, and the social and educational effects of war.

Picturing artistic pursuits

Penn celebrates operation and benefits of largest solar power project in Pennsylvania

Solar production has begun at the Great Cove I and II facilities in central Pennsylvania, the equivalent of powering 70% of the electricity demand from Penn’s academic campus and health system in the Philadelphia area.

Education, Business, & Law

Investing in future teachers and educational leaders

The Empowerment Through Education Scholarship Program at Penn’s Graduate School of Education is helping to prepare and retain teachers and educational leaders.

Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences

‘The Illuminated Body’ fuses color, light, and sound

A new Arthur Ross Gallery exhibition of work by artist Barbara Earl Thomas features cut-paper portraits reminiscent of stained glass and an immersive installation constructed with intricately cut material lit from behind.

25 years of ‘LOVE’

The iconic sculpture by pop artist Robert Indiana arrived on campus in 1999 and soon became a natural place to come together.

Type search request and press enter

What Should Free Speech Mean in College?

Universities must cultivate a climate in which students feel comfortable taking intellectual risks. four faculty members weigh in on why setting that culture is hard..

Reading time min

Illustration: Aad Goudappel

By Jill Patton

I magine a student posting satirical flyers around his dorm that mock undocumented students who fear deportation. Or flyers that say, “Racism lives here.” Or posters advertising a controversial speaker’s visit—which another resident rips down.

Now picture a classroom discussion about police shootings of African Americans. Some students attribute the deaths to cops’ racist attitudes. Another student counters that claim, saying a more likely explanation is that violent crime rates are higher among blacks. “Now, that was particularly uncivil!” the professor replies. Another student stands, as if to storm out in disgust at his classmate’s rebuttal. The professor slams his hand on the table, crying, “Sit down!” as he tries to regain control of the room.

Out in White Plaza—a Stanford free speech zone—a student group staffs a table in support of a Supreme Court nominee. Detractors try to steal the group’s signs, prompting the supporters to film the sign stealers and the taunting that ensues on both sides.

There are no easy answers to how a university should address conflicts in which students feel attacked or silenced—sometimes on both sides simultaneously. As Debra Satz, a philosopher and the dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences, says, “A central aim of the university—to generate knowledge—depends on the free exchange of ideas.” But, says Satz, who expands on her view in an essay below, “The classroom is not a street corner: No classroom can be a place of learning without abiding by norms of civility and mutual respect.”

For several years now, we’ve debated as a nation whether free speech on college campuses is under duress—and if so, how so and what to do about it. Here, you’ll read four senior faculty members’ views on the matter, and on how Stanford might cultivate open dialogue while paying heed to another university value that molds our educational experiences: inclusion. We hope you’ll consider their views and then share your own .

Jill Patton , ’03, MA ’04, is the senior editor of S tanford .

Ralph Richard Banks (Photo: Natalie Glatzel)

When silence isn’t golden.

by Ralph Richard Banks

“Words are dangerous. That’s why we should always choose them with care.” 

That’s my way of preparing my law students for the discussion of controversial and polarizing topics—abortion, same-sex marriage, capital punishment, affirmative action. I worry that the inclination to censor oneself or others may deprive us all of the full and rich inquiry such topics warrant. I know, too, that students may feel invested in these topics, implicated by them, in a way they don’t when we discuss, say, invalidation of wage and hour laws during the New Deal. It’s all too easy for the class to reach an unproductive equilibrium, where some students don’t speak to avoid the risk of censure and others confidently declare some views righteous and others bigoted.

Students are unlikely to make useful intellectual contributions if they are feeling attacked or if they feel that they don’t belong at Stanford.

Gay and lesbian students may feel, understandably, that criticisms of same-sex marriage imply rejection of them. Other students may be hesitant to voice religious opposition to same-sex marriage, fearing moral condemnation by their classmates. Similar issues arise with race-based affirmative action, where students from underrepresented racial minority groups might feel as though their status as a Stanford student is being questioned. Classmates, in turn, might either imply that they don’t belong or decline to voice important questions about the wisdom and effects of race-based affirmative action.

In short and plain language, we need to cut other people some slack.

In both cases, I try to frame the discussion broadly and to make it about policies rather than people. I situate race-based affirmative action, for example, in the context of the many ways that universities deviate from strict admissions criteria of grades and test scores. I place same-sex marriage within a broader conversation about the changing role and nature of marriage. With both topics, I try to create space for conversation by encouraging students to identify unbigoted reasons that people may oppose race-based affirmative action or the Supreme Court’s mandate of same-sex marriage. 

While the challenges of conversation around such sensitive issues are longstanding, my sense is that they have become more daunting in recent years. It has become increasingly difficult to maintain an environment in which all students feel free to share their views and to join together in working through morally fraught and politically divisive issues.

I see two factors as undermining debate on college campuses. One is the rise of social media, or, more accurately, the dominance of social media as a means through which young people relate to others and learn about their society. Now, what happens inside the classroom is shaped by what could happen outside of the classroom. In class, comments can be made available to the world nearly instantaneously. Social media mobs can seem merciless and relentless. The second factor relates to students’ willingness to pounce on others who voice sentiments they deem unacceptable. Some portion of this inclination stems from anxiety and insecurity; students in their search for comfort seek certainty—an ideological safe space. This confluence of forces can lead to an uncomfortable classroom dynamic, in which the most thoughtful students become the least likely to speak out, leaving a conversation dominated by those with the most extreme and self-righteous views. 

This situation is worsened by the fact that the nearest role models—the faculty—are often not very much better at engaging around polarizing issues. Just as students do not want to be called to account by their classmates, neither do faculty want to be targeted by students for having said something allegedly racist, sexist, classist, etc. All too often, faculty, rationally, pull back from discussing contentious issues for fear of censure. And faculty are aware that if issues do arise, the institution is more likely to protect its own interest, which is in avoiding controversy, protest and bad publicity, than to take a principled stance in support of a faculty member. No wonder that students fall short of our aspirations for full and vigorous debate; faculty often do as well.

I have my own way of pushing back against the forces that squelch debate. I emphasize that even polarizing, politically divisive issues are, in fact, complicated; they highlight difficult questions of law and policy, areas where the answers are not obvious. We would do well, then, to resist the urge toward self-righteousness and instead embrace a sense of humility, with full awareness of the limits of our own understanding. Curiosity will lead to more insight than certainty. 

Confronted with challenging topics, we need to cultivate patience, both with ourselves and with others. We should be less likely to take offense, less likely to impute ill. We need to charitably interpret others’ perspectives and hold in our minds the possibility that they may be criticizing our position, not us; our viewpoint, not our identity. In short and plain language, we need to cut other people some slack. And if we cut them some slack, hopefully they will cut us some slack. That would give everyone more space to join together in trying to figure out this complicated and frightening world in which we live. 

Ralph Richard Banks , ’87, MA ’87, is the Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Law at Stanford Law  School. His scholarship focuses on  the law with respect to race, education, employment and family.

Academic Value No. 1

by Michael McConnell

Freedom of speech on campus has become controversial as never before. A recent national survey of 2,225 college students found that 57 percent think university administrators should be able to restrict political views that are seen as hurtful or offensive to others. Even at Stanford, students frequently appeal to the university to silence other students whose views make them feel uncomfortable. This makes serious discussion of many important political issues almost impossible. Students of a conservative persuasion tell me that they do not feel free to express their views—even mainstream, reasonable views shared by millions of Americans—in class or in common spaces, for fear of attracting a torrent of abuse from fellow students and occasional disapproval from a small minority of ideologically intolerant faculty. They simply self-censor; they keep their mouths shut.

In disciplines like law, political science, history, the humanities and even medicine, the silencing of political dissent has devastating consequences. The purpose of the university is to search for the truth through the relentless exercise of reason and evidence; that purpose cannot be achieved if dissenting views are suppressed or potentially controversial avenues of inquiry are avoided. At a personal level, it is, of course, bad for the political minority, who feel excluded and unwelcome. But the greatest victims are members of the political majority, the left-progressive students who are deprived of the opportunity to test their arguments against contrary ideas, to learn how to engage with (and perhaps to persuade) people from the other side, and even, on occasion, to discover that they were wrong or misguided. Universities should not be bubbles. A university education should prepare students to encounter the world, in all its diversity and contentiousness, where not everyone will agree and not everyone will be willing to follow left-progressive notions about what can and cannot be said.

Universities should not be bubbles.

Moderate students who share some but not all the views of either side may be the most endangered. In these highly polarized times, students of a conservative, libertarian or religious-traditionalist bent can find friends and allies—at least outside of the classroom or the more public arenas for discussion. But moderates are without a home. They are excoriated if they deviate from the left-progressive orthodoxy but may not wish to make common cause with the right side of the spectrum. My sense is that moderate voices are disappearing from the campus debate. 

Stanford as a university should actively encourage diversity of opinion in a way that would be beyond the proper role of government. We should not be content with protecting the freedom of speech. We should regard a healthy pluralism of opinion as a pedagogical necessity.

What, then, should we do? I have three suggestions.

First, we should undertake a survey of the campus environment to determine just how constrained the expression of dissenting opinions really is. Do students who differ from the majority feel silenced? Do students at Stanford interact with people of differing views? Are serious cross-ideological conversations taking place? Is the classroom a place of free inquiry and discussion, rather than of ideological indoctrination or conformity? These must be questions, not assumptions. As a scientific, empirically minded institution, when Stanford is serious about campus problems, whether they are sexual assaults or the high cost of housing, the first step is to survey students and faculty to find out how serious the problem actually is.

Second, we need to elevate the topic of free exchange of ideas within the Stanford community. For much of our history, educators could assume that free speech and the toleration of difference of opinion were values shared by all Americans. This can no longer be assumed. Perhaps the role of the university in society, and the central place of freedom of expression in fulfilling that role, could be made the focus of a portion of New Student Orientation. Princeton chose Professor Keith Whittington’s Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech as the book all incoming students would read and discuss together last fall. We could, and should, do something similar.

Third, we need an office in the university administration that is committed to protecting freedom of inquiry and freedom of expression. Currently, when a student’s poster is taken down by dorm officials or a professor demands ideological conformity, students have no obvious place to go for redress. 

Free speech is not just a legal constraint. It is an academic value. We need to do more to give it life.

Michael McConnell  is the Richard and Frances Mallery  Professor of Law and director of the Constitutional Law Center, as well as a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Listen and Learn

by Hazel Rose Markus

We have two ears and one mouth; it is wise to use them in these proportions. This wisdom, attributed to multiple advice-givers across time and continents, highlights the underappreciated power of listening.

To provide a stable foundation for learning, growth and community at Stanford, our values of free expression and inclusion should be equally strong. Currently, free speech, which privileges the use of the mouth, is far stronger. Inclusion, the idea that everyone belongs and that no one should feel like a guest in someone else’s house, could use buttressing. Cultivating the use of the ears in houses and dorms but also in classes is one way to strengthen inclusion. 

As a psychologist who studies culture, I know that the imbalance in institutional emphasis between free speech and inclusion is hardly unique to Stanford. In the United States, where the individual is understood as a stable, independent entity, free speech has the advantage of historical precedent and widespread philosophical and moral support. Through talking, people express their rights and individuality; they influence their worlds. Americans are constantly exhorted to find and use their voices. Free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the United States is a nation of many free talkers. The best way to counter any excesses of free speech, we are told by legal experts, is with more speech. 

When a class becomes a community, everyone learns more.

Inclusion is a newer and more complex concern with much less historical and institutional underpinning. Inclusion is hard because it removes the spotlight from the free and independent individual and instead illuminates interdependence, relationships and the consequences of individuals’ actions. Meaningful recognition and inclusion of the many experiences and perspectives that now make up Stanford is a challenge that will require many small tweaks, as well as larger changes in norms, policies and practices. 

Speaking freely in my Cultural Psychology class, I noted that in the United States, talking was valuable because “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Several students with East Asian backgrounds seemed puzzled and offered a different cultural take on talking: “The mouth is the source of misfortune” and “The duck that quacks the loudest gets shot.” For those who hail from worlds in which the individual is not centered and separated but understood as a flexible, committed being defined by relations with close others, speaking requires attention to the consequences of one’s speech. And research confirms that while it’s true for European Americans that talking helps thinking, for many Asians and Asian Americans, talking can actually get in the way of thinking.

In class, some students with European American backgrounds were extremely well practiced in speaking freely and often. As one student told me, “I don’t even know what I think until I hear myself saying it.” Others, however, often those with less wealth and privilege, or those who were first-gen, were decidedly more reticent. A student who grew up in a rural community where he practiced fitting in, keeping his head down and paying attention to authority, asked me, “All those students who talk all the time—how do they do it? How do they already have so many ideas and opinions?”

As I have listened to these students, I have learned that they all have a lot to contribute but that the university as currently arranged makes inclusion more likely for the easy talker than for the others. Designing for inclusion raises many speech-related questions: Are people equally familiar and practiced with speaking and with engaging in active debate in the marketplace of ideas? Do they feel equally entitled and empowered to speak? Is speaking the most important way to have impact in the world? When is my speech hurting, threatening or excluding others? Do I have a responsibility to care about this?

These are tough questions, but they are the kinds of questions that Stanford has the responsibility to answer as it designs itself for an inclusive future. Some can be answered by listening to the rich array of perspectives available at Stanford. A class called Intergroup Communication that I teach with Dereca Blackmon, ’91, assistant vice provost and executive director of inclusion and diversity education, facilitates both talking and listening among people with different backgrounds and experiences. Based on a technique known as the fishbowl, students divide themselves into groups and ask and answer questions about one another. The groups can be based on any social distinction—major, region, birth order, religion, etc. 

Often the class begins with gender. Students divide into men, women and gender nonconforming. Each group develops thoughtful questions for the other groups, which take turns sitting in the middle of the room while the other groups pose their questions. In subsequent weeks, students divide into groups based on race and ethnicity, on the socioeconomic level of their families, and on sexual orientation. The class debriefs together following each unit, and outside of class, students meet for a discussion with a student from a different social category than their own. 

A set of norms guides the discussions, including: What is learned here leaves here, what is heard here stays here, make space, take space, understand your intention and own your impact. The questions are real. How can men be allies to women? What do men think about women who ask them out? What are some microaggressions you have experienced? How do you feel knowing you have so much more than other people? How does your family background influence your major? What are the best things about being Native? There is no back-and-forth between those asking the questions and those answering. The focus is on listening. The answers reveal important and often unseen differences, as well as many similarities in dreams and worries. 

After five years as part of this teaching team, I know that listening doesn’t just happen. It requires a set of values and skills grounded in the understanding that for many questions there is often more than one right answer. Yes, this is a class devoted to communication, but time devoted to establishing norms for discussion and getting to know one another can be a valuable use of classroom time whatever the topic. When a class becomes a community, everyone learns more. Innovating, experimenting and doubling down on ways to listen to one another, to ask the important follow-up questions and to listen some more, can give inclusion the institutional support it needs. 

Hazel Rose Markus is the Davis-Brack Professor in the Behavioral Sciences, the co-founder  and co-director of Stanford SPARQ ,  and an author of  Clash! How to Thrive in a Multicultural World.  

Tools for Debate

by Debra Satz

Many of the challenges to the free exchange of ideas on college campuses come from outside: There are individuals and organizations that monitor the teaching of professors who hold controversial views. There are groups that seek simply to incite confrontations. Our public culture is full of voices that hope to shut down or drown out rational deliberation. The existence of the internet also means that many of our well-intentioned mistakes can go viral. All of these social forces lead to a chilling of honest, probing and difficult discussions.

But some of the challenges we face come from within. Let me call out three obstacles to free inquiry that can arise inside our classrooms: 

Conformism. A central impediment with respect to free speech in our classrooms is self-censorship. Many students are afraid to voice opinions that go against what they perceive as the dominant opinion of their peers. Indeed, exercising one’s own judgment when all received opinion seems to go against that judgment is hard. It is far easier to cede to what the philosopher John Stuart Mill calls the “despotism of custom,” to go along with the majority view, to engage in group-think, or at the least to stay quiet. 

Subjectivism. Some students conclude that the existence of disagreement over policy matters means that moral values are subjective—that they are nothing but matters of mere opinion. If that’s right, then there is no point in trying to discuss and reason about them. But that isn’t right. We can subject our values to pressure by seeing if they are consistent with other values and beliefs we hold; we can increase awareness of costs and trade-offs given feasibility constraints and facts; and we can confront our ideas with other ways of thinking and see if they survive critical scrutiny. 

Dogmatism. Some students conclude from the existence of disagreement that someone must be wrong. But not all disagreements are unreasonable. Sincere people motivated to find common ground, and looking at the same evidence, can still disagree about policies because they attach different weights to the moral values involved in such policies, or because the evidence is incomplete and difficult to interpret, or because they assess the risk of different outcomes differently. 

We can confront our ideas with other ways of thinking and see if they survive.

We have pedagogical tools for addressing these difficulties in the classroom. The Socratic method is perhaps the best thing philosophy has produced. Socrates believed in the method of subjecting one’s beliefs to pressure from counterexamples and critical questions. In Plato’s Republic , Socrates begins with the everyday opinion that justice is “truth and returning what one takes,” and argues that this opinion leads to contradictions. By questioning those who hold such an opinion, Socrates shows that the commonsense morality of his time is full of internal tensions and can be brought under pressure by rational thought to resolve those tensions. It’s up to each of us to determine, in the face of critical questioning and open inquiry, our own values and beliefs about what is just. 

The devil’s advocate is another useful tool. When views—including cherished ones—go unchallenged, an educational opportunity is lost. This can even be the case when the opposing views are false or unreasonable. As John Stuart Mill wrote, “Both teachers and learners go to sleep at their post as soon as there is no enemy in the field.” It’s important for teachers to model engagement with diverse perspectives. In my classes on democratic thought, I am always sure to teach the strongest criticisms of democracy and, if necessary, to play the role of the devil’s advocate.

At the moment, we are in the midst of rethinking our undergraduate curriculum to make room in freshman year for classes that confront students with the need to reflect on their moral choices and moral responsibilities, to consider the fact of enduring disagreements in a diverse and free society, to recognize the importance of critical reflection, and to model the norms of civility and mutual respect. May our efforts at Stanford succeed and be a model for our society as a whole. 

Debra Satz   is the Vernon R. and  Lysbeth Warren Anderson Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences and the Marta Sutton  Weeks Professor of Ethics in Society. 

Tell us how you think colleges should handle the challenges surrounding free speech and inclusion.

Trending Stories

• Truth and Lies at Harvard

Advice & Insights

Law/Public Policy/Politics

You May Also Like

Re: the thought police.

On college campuses, how do we achieve both civility and candor?

Not on Her Watch

Her knowledge of Internet law is profound, and her advocacy for civil liberties is fierce. Meet Jennifer Granick, one of the country's most powerful voices for digital privacy.

What the Law Says About Campus Free Speech

As faculty grapple with how to set a culture that maximizes learning, administrators must also ensure the university follows the law.

Stanford Alumni Association

• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Class Notes

Collections

• Recent Grads
• Vintage 1973
• Resolutions
• Sandra Day O'Connor
• Mental Health
• The VanDerveer Files
• The Stanfords

Get in touch

• Letters to the Editor
• Submit an Obituary
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Code of Conduct

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Non-Discrimination

© Stanford University. Stanford, California 94305.

Why Schools Must Safeguard Free Speech

• Share article

The parlous state of civic debate today is making it increasingly clear that America needs to rededicate itself to the beliefs and habits necessary for sustaining a democratic, pluralistic nation. This includes fostering empathy and strenuously condemning language that incites violence, such as the monstrous event in Pittsburgh last month. But it also means protecting the vigorous exchange of divergent, even provocative, views. In recent years, debate has arisen about the state of free speech and free inquiry on college campuses, the training grounds for many of our future leaders. Every new example of safe spaces, trigger warnings, and bias-response teams and each new viral video showing undergraduates disrupting professors or invited speakers raises questions about higher education’s commitment to fostering the productive exchange of different views.

What is the role for K-12 education in all of this? Secondary schools are the pipeline for higher education, so America’s high schools could—maybe even should —be part of the solution.

Those engaged in the effort to foster and protect viewpoint diversity in higher education, however, have focused on the campuses themselves instead of looking upstream. Outside groups pressure colleges to adopt policies protecting free exchange. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which defends First Amendment rights at colleges and universities, publicly reports on campus policies and practices that inhibit discourse. Heterodox Academy (a coalition of 1,800 professors and graduate students), which promotes viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement, has produced a guide detailing which campuses are best for students seeking exposure to different perspectives .

Instead of dealing with the symptoms we see on campus, colleges should work with K-12 to address the underlying problem."

A number of colleges are, themselves, taking important steps. The University of Chicago issued a 2015 statement declaring its commitment to protecting speech , which several dozen other colleges adopted. Princeton assigned a book about free speech as a pre-read for the incoming class of 2022. Policymakers are not far behind. Multiple states have recently introduced and passed laws protecting expression on public campuses . The education committee of the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing in September titled, “Examining First Amendment Rights on Campus,” and there are proposals to withhold federal research funds from colleges that don’t protect free speech.

Such efforts could safeguard debate and thwart the “heckler’s veto.” The hope is that by creating environments that protect expression, heated but productive discussions will ensue, and students, coming face to face with those holding differing opinions, will grow as a result.

But that forecast may be too sunny. Simply making space for contentious conversation may not be enough because many students are unprepared for contentious conversation. If a campus is stocked with free-speech-hostile students, administrators could suspend those who disrupt a lecture, but other equally indignant students could disrupt the next one. Administrators might be prohibited from punishing a student for making provocative arguments, but her classmates might castigate or shun her. Conditioned to shame dissenters and feel shame when dissenting, otherwise ambivalent students might reflexively join shunning sessions and learn to silence themselves. In essence, campus policies could throw free-speech parties, but few students might show up.

We should recognize a significant part of the problem is students arriving on campus lacking an appreciation for the value of free inquiry and the skills to productively engage in the give-and-take of a pluralistic, democratic society. A 2017 Knight Foundation/Gallup survey found when students were asked which was more important, promoting an inclusive society that is welcoming to diverse groups or protecting free speech, a majority chose the former. Students were divided between favoring and opposing discussion-limiting “speech codes,” and 61 percent believe their campus climate prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might be offended. In fact, as Jonathan Haidt, an NYU professor and co-founder of Heterodox Academy, and Greg Lukianoff, CEO of FIRE, argue in The Coddling of the American Mind , campus climates have become more unwelcoming to ideological diversity in the last few years. Young people appear to be increasingly overprotected, unpracticed at debate, and likely to associate words with violence.

Instead of dealing with the symptoms we see on campus, colleges should work with K-12 to address the underlying problem. Colleges should change their applications and admissions processes to explicitly prioritize the beliefs and skills necessary to engage in a community of differing perspectives. This could include prospective students responding to essay prompts related to viewpoint diversity; demonstrating knowledge of the First Amendment’s provisions, history, and importance; and/or signing an assurance related to free inquiry and open debate.

Higher education has an outsized influence on what high schools teach and what educators and parents encourage. Students and adults focus on AP courses, GPAs, SAT and ACT scores, and extracurriculars largely because college admissions offices make clear they care about those things. Were college presidents to announce they will only admit students who value the First Amendment, believe in viewpoint diversity, and want to have their own opinions challenged, admissions officers could immediately influence incoming classes. But the ripples would swiftly reach secondary schools, affecting course offerings, out-of-school programming, and, most importantly, history and civics standards, curriculum, and assessments.

Because of state and federal laws and a constellation of advocacy groups, high schools are constantly pressured to prioritize different things. A recommitment to teaching the virtues of viewpoint diversity might not happen absent instigation from colleges. Secondary schools might well prove a receptive audience to this nudge. A recent Education Week survey found that more than half of principals and administrators believe schools aren’t focusing enough on civics. Another survey found that citizens are not so confident that students are learning the civics topics that citizens believe to be most essential . Reform-minded college presidents and/or their governing boards should publicly declare that their campuses require curious, open-minded, politically tolerant, and emotionally robust students, and that admissions practices will be adjusted accordingly.

Parents and secondary school educators want to prepare their students for success after graduation. Campuses simply need to be explicit that “college ready” includes a commitment to sharing, protecting, and learning from different points of view.

Higher education: Help secondary education help you.

A version of this article appeared in the November 14, 2018 edition of Education Week as What Is K-12’s Role in Civic Debate?

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Knight Foundation

• Communities
• Learning and Impact
• Philadelphia
• Community Foundations Program
• Press Releases
• Arts and Technology
• Diverse Asset Managers
• Elections and Voting
• Freedom of Expression
• Knight Research Network
• Local Journalism
• Public Spaces
• Smart Cities
• Technology and Democracy
• Trust in News
• Board of Trustees
• Internship Program
• Financial Information

College Student Views on Free Expression and Campus Speech 2022

Full reports, a look at key trends in student speech views since 2016 .

College campuses have long been places where the limits of free expression are debated and tested. In recent years, this dialogue has grown more fraught as some schools have sought to create a more protective speech environment for students. Moreover, key events shaping the past two years, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the racial justice movement and the 2020 election, have only added deeper dimensions to the dialogue around free speech playing out on campus and in society at large. 

The “Knight-Ipsos College Student Views on Free Expression and Campus Speech” report is the fourth in a series of Knight Foundation reports measuring college student attitudes toward speech and the First Amendment since 2016. For this report, Knight Foundation commissioned Ipsos to conduct a survey with a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 college students ages 18-24 enrolled in all types of higher education institutions, along with 4,000 American adults, offering insight into how college students’ views on free speech compare with those of the general public. In addition to the past Knight-Gallup campus speech surveys (2016, 2017, 2019), Knight has studied free speech views among high school students since 2004. Trends in college student attitudes are included throughout this report. 

For findings on how the adult population views free speech and expression, please see “Free Expression in America Post -2020,” published earlier in January 2022. 

This Knight Foundation-Ipsos report offers nuanced insight into how college students perceive campus speech and First Amendment protections today, including how views are evolving within different factions of the student body. This survey reinforces that students are not a monolithic group when it comes to speech, finding that partisanship, race, and ethnicity drive meaningful differences in how college students view speech. Understanding where different groups stand is vitally important for higher education leaders as they seek to foster free expression on college campuses and create a campus environment that is diverse, equitable, and inclusive. 

The findings described in this report cover many, but not all, of the rich insights possible from this complex dataset. We invite the public and researchers to explore this publicly available resource in further detail. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Students view speech rights as important, yet less secure than in years past: Students continue to believe First Amendment rights and concepts of free speech are important to democracy. However, the percentage of students saying speech rights are secure has fallen every year since this question was first asked in 2016. This includes a 12-point decrease from 2019 as an increasing number of students—particularly Republicans—say they believe speech rights are threatened. 
• Students of color believe their speech is less protected: While a majority of college students express confidence that the First Amendment protects “people like them,” Black students in particular feel much less protected, with a sharp decline from 2019 to 2021. 
• Students believe exposure to a wide spectrum of speech at college is important: Most students continue to say colleges should allow students to be exposed to all types of speech, including political speech that is offensive or biased, rather than prohibiting speech they may find offensive. 
• Students favor college policies that limit racist speech, but support for other speech interventions remains low: Most students favor colleges instituting policies that restrict the use of racial slurs on campus, suggesting that, for them, this particular category of speech does not merit mandated exposure on campus. Just 1 in 4 students favor schools disinviting controversial speakers, down from more than 2 in 5 in 2019. Similarly, the number of students who support colleges providing safe spaces or speech codes has fallen over the past two years. 
• Students say the campus climate stifles free expression, yet speech on campus is making nearly 1 in 5 feel unsafe: More students now say the climate at school prevents some from saying things others might find offensive, and fewer feel comfortable disagreeing in class. Yet slightly more now report feeling unsafe because of comments made on campus than in 2019. This is particularly true for female students and students of color. 

A selection of key trends among students over the years. Full findings are in the body of the report. 

KEY POPULATIONS

Experience with and attitudes toward speech vary widely among different student groups. The greatest differences exist among race and partisanship, and less so by gender or other demographic groupings. The following is a brief summary of the major findings and how opinion has changed over time, including the degree to which students have a formed opinion at all. 

Democratic students 

A majority of Democratic students believe that freedom of speech is secure in America today, a view that has held constant since 2019. When it comes to free expression broadly on campus, just over half of Democratic students favor schools fostering an environment in which all forms of speech are allowed, a view that’s softened since the last time Knight asked these questions two years ago. 

Democrats are most likely to favor colleges implementing restrictions on certain forms of speech on campus, particularly around speech that is offensive to minority groups, something that was also true in prior Knight-Gallup research. Both now and in 2019, a large majority of Democratic students believe that colleges should be able to restrict the use of racial slurs on campus. When it comes to other speech policies, 3 in 4 support the creation of safe spaces on campus, close to half support the creation of speech codes that could limit offensive or biased speech, and 2 in 5 favor schools disinviting potentially controversial speakers. These views are consistent with previous surveys. 

A majority of Democrats feel that their campus climate prevents people from saying what they believe for fear of offending others, although they are less likely to feel this way than Republicans and independents. Compared with two years ago, Democratic students now feel less comfortable voicing disagreements in class. 

Independent students 

Independent students express growing concerns about the fundamental security of free speech in America today while indicating their wariness of colleges limiting speech on campus. Just under half of all independents feel that free speech is secure today, down from 3 in 4 who felt this way in 2016. At the same time, a strong majority (8 in 10) believe that they are protected under the First Amendment. This puts them on about equal footing with Democrats, but slightly behind Republicans. 

A majority believe that colleges should allow students to be exposed to all forms of speech. Opinion is split among the remaining minority with equal numbers (around 1 in 5 each) either believing that colleges should foster a protective environment or having no opinion on the matter. Much like two years ago, few support colleges disinviting controversial speakers or instituting speech codes. 

A majority feel that their campus climate limits free expression, a view that has remained the same since 2019. 

Independents were more likely than other groups of students to respond with the newly prompted “No opinion” option this year, indicating that many of them do not have strong views on these issues at all. 

Republican students 

Republican students are increasingly likely to feel that freedom of speech is under threat—just over a quarter believe it is secure today, down from two-thirds in 2016. More now also believe that their school’s climate stifles free expression. 

A strong majority (7 in 10, down from 90% in 2019) say it is more important for colleges to allow students to be exposed to all types of speech, even if they find it offensive or biased, than to prohibit offensive or biased speech. A majority (56%)—albeit a smaller share than either Democratic or independent students—believe that colleges should be allowed to prohibit the use of racial slurs on campus. Moreover, for Republican students, this represents a more than 20-point drop from 2019 in the percentage who feel that colleges should restrict the use of racial slurs on campus. 

Republicans are more divided around whether safe spaces should be allowed on campus—half favor this—but come down firmly against schools disinviting controversial speakers, something that was also true two years ago. A slim majority oppose schools instituting speech codes that could restrict offensive or biased speech. Unlike their Democratic counterparts, there has been no change over time in their already low level of comfort voicing disagreements with professors or other students; less than half remain comfortable. 

White students 

White students tend to favor allowing all types of speech on campus, over protecting students by prohibiting certain speech. They are least likely to report having felt unsafe or uncomfortable on campus because of comments about their identity, as compared with Black and Hispanic students. This has not changed substantially since 2019. 

Overall, half of white college students believe that freedom of speech is under threat in America today. Yet a large majority feel that the First Amendment protects them, a view that has held steady since 2019. 

When it comes to free expression on college campuses, white students are more likely than their Black or Hispanic counterparts to agree that schools should favor exposing students to all forms of speech, rather than protecting them from speech they may find offensive or biased. This was also true two years ago. They are slightly more likely than Black or Hispanic students to believe that the campus environment stifles free expression. 

Black students 

Fewer Black students express confidence that the First Amendment protects people like them. At the same time, a growing number of Black students favor a more protective campus environment. 

The share of Black students who feel the First Amendment protects them a great deal has fallen by 20 percentage points over the past two years. Black students also express less confidence than the broader Black adult population about how effectively the First Amendment protects either them or the average American. 

When it comes to campus free speech, the number of Black students who favor a campus environment that protects students by prohibiting speech that they might find offensive or biased has grown from 28% in 2019 to 36% in 2021. Both in 2019 and 2021, a majority of Black students feel that colleges should restrict the use of offensive racial slurs on campus. 

Black students are more likely than white or Hispanic students to say that they have been made to feel uncomfortable due to statements that others have made in their presence about their identity or political beliefs, both in daily life and on campus. This has remained constant since 2019.

Hispanic students 

Hispanic students’ views of campus speech, and personal experiences, fall somewhere between the differing views of Black and white students. 

A strong majority of Hispanic students believe that the First Amendment protects people like them, something that was also true two years ago. The number of Hispanic students saying this is nearly equal to the number of white students. Similarly, Hispanic students align closely with white students on perceptions that free speech is under threat; half agree. 

However, with regard to colleges restricting offensive racial slurs, Hispanic students fall closer to Black students, with 7 in 10 supporting such an action. 

Hispanic students (along with independents) are among the most likely to say they have no opinion about whether colleges should foster a more protective speech environment or allow all types of speech on campus. A plurality oppose disinviting controversial speakers, but they are split around instituting speech codes. Like white students, close to 6 in 10 favor the creation of safe spaces on campus, less than the share of Black students who do. 

Male and female students 

For the most part, male and female students are aligned in their attitudes and experiences of free speech, with a few key differences. Overall, a majority of both male and female students say that free speech rights are important to American democracy, although fewer feel this way than in 2019. Now, female students are more likely than male students to say that free speech rights are extremely important, a change from 2019 when more men said free speech rights were extremely important. 

Nearly 1 in 5 male and female students alike report having felt unsafe due to comments on campus, whereas larger gender differences were observed in prior years. A more meaningful difference appears when male and female students are asked if they have felt uncomfortable on campus. Female students remain significantly more likely to have felt uncomfortable due to speech on campus, as they did in 2019. 

Download full report:

Related Resources

Knight Free Expression Research Series

Free Expression in America Post-2020

A Knight-Ipsos study from the Knight Free Expression Research Series A Landmark Survey of Americans’ Views on Speech Rights 

Post-2020, college students see speech as less secure, and students of color feel less protected

An uproar over a climate scientist’s canceled lecture at MIT. A furor over a Charles Murray talk at Middlebury College. An ongoing controversy concerning racist remarks by a University of Pennsylvania law professor.  In recent years, headline-grabbing events like these have sparked an energetic debate about how higher education should treat speech in the 21st […]

Knight-Ipsos poll: College students covet free speech rights, but view them as increasingly fragile

A new study from the Knight Free Expression (KFX) Research Series shows that most college students in America strongly value free speech […]

In the News

Do Students Self-Censor? Here’s What the Data Tell Us

Most Iowa college students feel free to share opinions in class

Home — Essay Samples — Education — College Education — Should College Education Be Free: Persuasive Paper

Should College Education Be Free: Persuasive Paper

• Categories: College Education

About this sample

Words: 661 |

Published: Mar 6, 2024

Words: 661 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Introduction

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 681 words

1 pages / 598 words

6 pages / 2900 words

2 pages / 848 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on College Education

In his book "College: What It Was, Is, and Should Be," Andrew Delbanco offers a critical analysis of the challenges facing higher education in the United States today. Delbanco argues that the traditional mission of colleges and [...]

Higher education is valuable for individuals and society as a whole. It enhances personal growth, improves career prospects, and fosters a well-rounded society. Baum, S., & Ma, J. (2016). Trends in College Pricing 2016. The [...]

In the United States, the choice between attending a community college or a four-year university is a significant decision for many individuals pursuing higher education. While both options offer valuable educational [...]

Choosing the right educational path is a pivotal moment in an individual's life, with far-reaching implications for their future career and personal growth. The decision often boils down to two main options: trade school and [...]

As Matshona Dhliwayo once said, “Money doesn’t grow on trees, but grows on intelligent minds.” The idea of whether college should be free has been a controversial and widely debated topic. Imagine living in an old, [...]

In today's rapidly evolving world, the importance of a college education has never been more crucial. As technology advances and the job market becomes increasingly competitive, a college degree has become a necessity for [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Speech on Free Education for Everyone

A good education is essential for self-development and development of societies. Schooling helps us read and write, learn basics, and develop new skills. Here’s a collection of short speeches on free education for everyone.

Free Education for Everyone

Speech on Free Education

When we look at the corners of the world today, we can see children attending classes, learning, and progressing. However, in some countries education is not free, which can lead to kids being kept out of school. According to UNICEF, families in many countries in the rest of the world that lack good access to schooling struggle to pay fees to send their kids to school.

“In Uganda and Nepal, households provide a half of the education funding: 57 percent and 49 percent, respectively.”

http://uis.unesco.org/ claims other countries such as Côte d’Ivoire the coverage is a third (33 percent).  The study includes costs for items such as school uniforms, textbooks, tuition, and other costs. Even in primary school, the costs are high, ranging from $87 a year in Ghana to over  $670 in El Salvador.

The concern is parents of developing countries pay a much larger percentage of their income on education than parents from developed nations. The outcome, the UNICEF study claims, is this stops parents from sending children to school. The knock on effect allows for grim reading, for the family becomes trapped in a cycle of poverty. The child does not learn new skills and then uneducated, finds it hard to gain employment in a decently paid job.

The struggle to educate children in developing countries becomes harder when the child reaches secondary school age. Secondary spending reaches up to 25% of a household’s entire yearly income in Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Chad, and Niger according to the UNICEF report.

“Households in Africa’s Benin spend more per secondary student ($402) than the government ($259).”

Developing countries should spend more to make education a priority and make it easier for all families to benefit from free education. School provides an environment where we can learn many basic skills. We learn the alphabet, numbers, and maths. We also get the chance to practice social skills, teamwork, drawing, building, problem-solving and cognitive skills.

The skills and knowledge that we learn at school will help us now and in later life as we find employment. Good attendance and exam results show potential employers that we are reliable.

Benjamin Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a leading writer, printer, inventor, political philosopher, politician, Freemason, postmaster, scientist, humorist, civic activist, diplomat and statesman. His famous quote about the importance of education is as powerful now as it was in the 18 th century:

  “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.”

Michelle Obama reinforced how education is of key importance:

“The ability to read, write, and analyze; the confidence to stand up and demand justice and equality; the qualifications and connections to get your foot in the door and take your seat at the table—all of that starts with education.”

2. Free Education

What are we if we never attend school? What prospects do we have individually and as uneducated societies? The prospects are bleak. Attending school allows us to learn to read and write. With neither we would not be able to aptly communicate ideas and knowledge. At school we learn good hygiene in home economics and how to prepare food. At school we learn about lessons of history and how our forbears strived to make our countries safer, fairer, well supplied with food, clean water and medical advancements to safeguard our health.  It was Winston Churchill who underpinned the importance of learning history when he said:

‘From history we learn the prognosis of future events’.

By going to school we learn about the importance of team work and how to assign workplace roles and responsibilities for a better outcome. At classes we learn about  the importance of mathematics and how it helps us build great structures, transport and solve engineering problems. Education allows us to learn the arts: the techniques of the great oil painters of the past, the writings of learned men such as William Shakespeare. A more light hearted quote was breathed by Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC) who is often considered as one of the greatest Roman orators and prose stylists of his time. He wisely said:

“If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.”

When financial costs become too high parents in developing countries opt not to send their children to school. The outcome is a spiral of ignorance and poverty.

I will now speak of the countries that deserve plaudits by offering free education. Higher education tuition fees are free in Norway allowing students to earn degrees at high quality universities such as Oslo, the University of Bergen and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Students pursuing research-based doctoral degrees get free tuition in Sweden. Of high merit comes Germany. It’s need for technical workers has opened the doors to free higher education to all students. Highly esteemed institutions, such as the University of Munich and University of Bonn, mean that students receive a good education.

Beyond Europe public universities in countries such as Mexico and Brazil also have virtually free tuition which needless to say is great for encouraging new generations to attend universities. Small registration fees are payable, though do not add up to much.

According to Business Insider the percentage of young adults who will attend university in Norway is predictably very high at 77%.

According to a 2011 report from OECD, when you add up the cost of living, tuition, books and other expenses, the average cost of attending a US in-state public university can total $25,290 a year. That figure must have only grown.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the U.S. claims a 2017 study found t he overall college enrollment rate for young adults increased from 35 % in 2000 to 40 % in 2017, with Asian ethnic groups at 65% attendance rate while white and black were much lower at %45 and 35%  respectively.

All said, I have laid down reasons why it is a modern day crime for some developing countries and developed nations not to invest more in free education for everyone or at least to make it affordable.

If you have the opportunity to attend school and later college you should grasp the opportunity to improve your skills, learn knowledge and progress to a well paid job.

Related Posts

Helpful Guide to Essay Writing for Students

Speech on E-learning

Top 10 Hacks to Attempt UCAT and Get Excellent Grades

About the author.

FindaSpeech

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

American Council on Education president discusses limits on free speech on campuses

Steve Inskeep

NPR's Steve Inskeep asks the president of the American Council on Education, Ted Mitchell, about rights and limits to free speech on college campuses.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

All right. We now know the aftermath of a congressional hearing on campus speech. The president of Harvard will keep her job, receiving resounding support from the university. The head of the University of Pennsylvania is out. Lawmaker Elise Stefanik had pressed Liz Magill on whether an extreme statement would violate university codes of conduct.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

ELISE STEFANIK: At Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct? Yes or no.

LIZ MAGILL: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.

STEFANIK: I am asking - specifically calling for the genocide of Jews. Does that constitute bullying and harassment?

MAGILL: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.

STEFANIK: So the answer is yes.

MAGILL: It is a context-dependent decision.

INSKEEP: The absence of a yes-or-no answer appears to have been a factor in Magill's resignation. Ted Mitchell is following all of this. He is president of the American Council on Education, which weighs in on these matters. Good morning, sir.

TED MITCHELL: Good morning, Steve.

INSKEEP: What does this episode reveal about the rules for speech on campus as opposed to anywhere else?

MITCHELL: Yeah, it's certainly a moment. I think that free speech is certainly one of the pillars of higher education. It's one of the most important areas of academic discourse and academic freedom. But more importantly, free speech is one of the ways in which colleges and universities encourage students of whatever age or stripe to confront ideas that they're not comfortable with and to confront people who may have very different points of view. That's an important part of education. On the other side, there is the Title VI mandate to create a safe and equitable, non-discriminatory environment. So those two things have always been in tension. And I think we're seeing that tension playing out in real time today.

INSKEEP: It seems to me, if I can interpret a little bit here, Republicans were pressing on this in a political context in a House hearing for a variety of reasons. But one of them was to point out what they see as hypocrisy. A lot of elite universities have embraced the idea that doesn't seem very consistent with free speech - the idea that speech is literally violence, and that if someone says something that bothers a particular group of people, they should be actively punished. And then at least Stefanik is essentially saying, why aren't you doing that in this particular context? Is it fair to say that there is a double standard or some hypocrisy here?

MITCHELL: Well, I think it's not exactly a double standard. I think that people are very comfortable with free speech, as long as they agree with the speech itself. I think it becomes very difficult for people to support free speech when that feels like it is running counter to deeply held beliefs. I think that that back and forth happens on the left. It happens on the right. And we've seen that over the last several years on college campuses in America. And Steve, I want to emphasize - there are guardrails, and certainly there is speech that pushes up against those guardrails. And institutions have to be protective of their students' safety. On the other hand, this is part of what we expect from our higher education system, is we expect the raucous confrontation between different idea sets to help people really learn and challenge themselves.

INSKEEP: I'm going to ask you a hard, perhaps unfair question, but you're the expert here, so maybe you'll have an assessment. What if you were in that congressional hearing and asked that question just a little bit differently? Should something like calling for the genocide of Jews be against a university's code of conduct, and can it legally be against the code of conduct?

MITCHELL: Yeah, and I don't want to reproduce the hearing, Steve, but I think that the place to start with an answer to that is yes. And then it becomes more complicated in the adjudication, in the details, in the gathering of facts and evidence. But I think that on its face, statements supporting genocide are themselves very, very harmful.

INSKEEP: And then I guess you have to follow up when you say, everything else, the details, it's how do you approach that? How do you punish it or address it, given that there is a First Amendment in this country? That is the issue that universities face.

MITCHELL: Exactly so. And again, going back to my general sense that over time, this has been a tension between these two things. And it's - there are lots of attempts, and speech codes are one of them, to create clear, bright, permanent lines. And historically they've just never worked. This is just something that needs to be - a tension that needs to be managed, not a problem that needs to be solved.

INSKEEP: Is there a pendulum here, that universities were really going after a lot of speech a few years ago, and now things are beginning to free up again?

MITCHELL: I think that that's right. I think that there's always a pendulum. It swings back and forth. It's very sensitive to whatever the social issues are, whether those are abortion and prolife, whether those are the Dobbs decision, whether that's civil rights, or going back even farther, the whole issue of who gets to go to colleges and universities. So we're bellwethers, there's no doubt about that.

INSKEEP: If you had a couple of seconds to answer this, do you feel that students in universities generally are getting a wide range of ideas - exposed to a wide range of ideas?

MITCHELL: I do, and I think that the discourse today on Palestine and Israel is evidence of that.

INSKEEP: Ted Mitchell is president of the American Council on Education. Thanks for your insights - really appreciate it.

MITCHELL: Thank you, Steve.

Copyright © 2023 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Challenges of Ethically Regulating Free Speech on College Campuses

By shoellis

By: Olivia Welsh, Ethics and Policy Intern

Each day, headlines highlight the ongoing questions we have about the role of universities in public discourse. These conversations center on questions surrounding political neutrality, what is considered “appropriate” speech from students and faculty, and how to protect university community members from harm. These are not new questions, but the escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict, from everyday campus protests to Ivy League president resignations, has brought the issue of free speech on college campuses to a boiling point.

A university or higher-education institution is inherently a setting where intellectual and ideological disagreement will occur – and should even be encouraged. The challenge is where and how do we draw the line. What type of speech is so harmful to members of the community that it must be restricted? Who gets to decide the line between right and wrong? What is a university’s responsibility to speak out about the social and political issues of the day?

Being uncomfortable is a necessary part of growth. Being unsafe is not. This is the balance that colleges and universities are trying to strike every day. Can there ever be an institution that gets it exactly right in the eyes of all?

The background of college campus free speech

In the 1960s, free speech on college campuses was at the forefront of higher education discussions. The University of Chicago made its first attempt at taking an official stance by publishing the Kalven Report. This 1967 statement, still in use today, argues that institutions should remain socially and politically neutral while fostering lively debate among their members. The authors of the Kalven Report believed that a university should not suppress any viewpoints or change its corporate activities to foster social or political values.

“The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. […] To perform its mission in society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures” [5].

In short, the report states that a university should be a place to discuss all possible perspectives without censorship. The members of a university community can come to their own conclusions and act independently of the institution itself. The Kalven Report pushes back at anyone who might consider such a choice to not weigh in on the topics of the day as cowardly or uncaring:

“The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest.” [5]

In 2014, the University of Chicago decided to make another statement amidst an onslaught of various free speech lawsuits against universities nationwide. The resulting Chicago Principles delineate a clear and longstanding commitment to free speech and allow a wide diversity of ideas to be discussed in the University setting. The Chicago Principles reiterate the sentiment of the Kalven Report, calling debate and deliberation essential to higher education, even if the ideas discussed are viewed as “offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed” [8]. It guarantees “the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn,” provided that such behavior does not interfere with the core functioning of the university [8]. Furthermore, the Chicago Principles demand that all community members not obstruct or otherwise interfere with others’ freedom of speech. The Chicago Principles conclude by arguing that “without a vibrant commitment to free and open inquiry, a university ceases to be a university” [8].

These are the positions that the University of North Carolina System (“UNC System”) adopted in 2017, as endorsed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s (“UNC-Chapel Hill”) Faculty Council and Board of Trustees [10] [3]. The UNC System schools are among over 100 other colleges and universities nationwide that have adopted the Chicago Principles, including several of our peer institutions [4]. In 2022, the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees took a further step in protecting free speech by adopting the Kalven Report [2].

“The mission of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is advanced by our commitment to the aspirational principles that guide our public conversation no matter how unsettling […] At Carolina, we have long known that light and liberty are the essential tools that allow problems to be seen, ideas to be tested, and solutions to be found,” the Faculty Council states [10].

Of course, both the UNC System and UNC-Chapel Hill have policies regulating free speech, which forbid defamation, unlawful harassment, true threats, unjust invasions of privacy, and more (see the UNC System Policy and the UNC-Chapel Hill Policy ). However, these policies leave several unanswered questions. For example, it is not always clear what speech falls under the category of a “true threat,” especially because that might mean different things to different people.

When does protecting free speech interfere with a university’s teaching mission and functioning? Do institutions have a different obligation to protect historically marginalized groups compared to historically well-represented groups? What is a university’s responsibility in addressing social and political issues? There are no “right” answers, but some views on these questions are explored below.

When does protecting free speech inhibit a university’s functioning?

The Kalven Report, the Chicago Principles, and the UNC policies all indicate that it is appropriate to restrict free speech when it interferes with the necessary functioning of the university, with safety concerns being of utmost importance. Beyond cases like riots that would physically disallow classes from taking place and endanger members of the university, disruptions like exclusionary speech could also be viewed as interfering with a university’s core functioning by hindering equal access to education. If it is a university’s mission to educate all its students, but a particular group feels unreasonably ostracized due to the free speech of others and feels unable to attend or participate in class, then one could argue that speech is interfering with the necessary functioning of the university.

Say that, while not violating any laws, an anti-Black Lives Matter (“BLM”) speaker comes to campus and delivers a scathing condemnation of the BLM movement. However, the speaker’s remarks and student participation in the event make Black students feel unwelcome on campus, and therefore, these students find it harder to benefit from their education. Does this qualify as speech that interferes with the university’s functioning? And if so, should it not be welcomed on campus?

On the flip side, does inhibiting a challenging viewpoint negatively impact the educational environment? Students should have the opportunity to grapple with difficult ideas and the controversies of the day – that is part of what is so valuable about a liberal arts education. Colleges are not full of fragile students who cannot stand to hear free speech, and they should not be portrayed as such. The key is creating an environment where the needs of all students remain supported even during protests, controversial speakers, and difficult discussions. However, it is not easy to prescribe a single policy for handling free speech since circumstances vary dramatically from institution to institution [1].

Is there a different obligation to protect historically marginalized groups at a university?

Continuing with this hypothetical of an anti-BLM speaker on campus, how might appropriate free-speech regulation differ based on context? According to UNC System data, just over 8% of UNC-Chapel Hill’s undergraduate student body identifies as Black/African American [11]. In the context of having such a significant minority, is it justified to more strictly regulate free speech that makes Black students feel unwelcome and further marginalized at the university?

One might think that free speech should be fully protected regardless because any university member in opposition has an equal right to free speech in response. However, just because someone has the right to free speech does not mean they feel reasonably empowered to use it. This highlights the important distinction between equality, which treats everyone the same, and equity, which recognizes that creating a level playing field often means allocating more or less resources to particular individuals or groups based on their specific circumstances. Giving all campus community members the same right to free speech is equal, but equitable free speech would amplify and protect minority groups.

The teaching mission of a university relies on an inclusive climate. Institutional attention is necessary to ensure that all students in diverse classrooms are comfortable being involved in the learning experience. Because it is important to include ALL students in an environment of free inquiry, there is an argument that free speech that specifically marginalizes an already minority group must be more strictly regulated than controversial speech that makes a majority group uncomfortable [1].

This is where context is important because, unlike UNC-Chapel Hill, Howard University (“Howard”) has a very strong majority of Black students. At Howard, Black students would likely not feel as threatened by an anti-BLM speaker; therefore, students could more comfortably engage in rigorous debate and grapple with differing viewpoints, which is essential in higher education.

What is a university’s responsibility to govern speech on campus about social and political issues?

This past November, a speaker unaffiliated with UNC-Chapel Hill made remarks on campus that sympathized with the violence perpetrated by Hamas against Israeli citizens on October 7th, 2023 [7]. Such tolerance for violence (which killed over a thousand Israeli citizens) is clearly alarming and certainly falls under the category of speech seen as “offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.” But remember that, in the spirit of free inquiry and true academia, the Chicago Principles protect such speech. The remarks did not include a threat or any other banned speech.

Then-Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz strongly condemned the remarks, as did the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and many others at UNC-Chapel Hill. Months later, the Faculty Council, the same one that originally endorsed the Chicago Principles, considered a resolution to “strongly condemn the antisemitic statements at the event.” The group decided to indefinitely postpone the resolution, avoiding taking a side on its merits. While some did feel strongly that the remarks were antisemitic, others viewed this as a mislabeling since the comments contained no mention of the Jewish religion or people and only directly criticized the actions of the Israeli state .

There is another tricky consideration – if the Faculty Council passes a resolution condemning antisemitism, must it follow this up with a condemnation of Islamophobia to ensure neutrality and inclusivity? Does this set a precedent by which the Faculty Council must condemn any speech it regards as harmful, even if the speech does not violate the UNC System or UNC-Chapel Hill free speech policies? Who decides what should and should not be condemned, and where is the line drawn regarding what warrants a comment?

Certainly, this is not to say that members of an institution cannot or should not speak up against violence or perceived hate. Still, at the institutional level, there are significant policy ramifications to consider in protecting free speech and thorough education [7]. Starting to weigh in on social and political issues is a slippery slope for universities because it creates an expectation of doing so for all issues. The authors of the Kalven Report anticipated this and promoted institutional neutrality, trying to make a university a simple facility where lively debates on the day’s topics can occur.

This is a perfectly reasonable argument, but there is another drastically different viewpoint. Is institutional neutrality just a convenient excuse for universities to stay silent and take the “easy way out?” [12]. At Indiana University (“IU”), administrators recently caused an uproar when they canceled a scheduled art exhibition by a Palestinian-American artist. IU administration cited security concerns as the reason for the cancellation. However, the artist, members of the IU community, and outside organizations speculate that the real reason is a reaction to comments by an Indiana congressman who threatened to withhold federal funding from IU if it failed to address perceived antisemitism concerns adequately [6].

Walking a political tightrope does not seem to be a legitimate reason for censorship at a public university. Institutional neutrality that allows for all viewpoints to be expressed is very different than a restrictive “institutional neutrality” that prohibits any viewpoints from being expressed. Universities risk establishing an orthodox view on campus by making statements or taking actions regulating free speech, thereby ostracizing alternative thinkers [9]. While a university might not be responsible for acting on social and political issues (the substance for a whole different debate), it does have a responsibility to facilitate an environment that considers social and political issues and equips its students to handle these difficult or delicate issues once they graduate.

Between a rock and a hard place

There are still so many unanswered questions regarding free speech on campus, and it is doubtful that a satisfactory solution will ever be reached. Any policy on free speech must consider legal constraints, institutional missions, and the feelings of students, faculty, and staff. With so many stakeholders to satisfy, it makes sense that the issue of free speech on campus keeps coming up.

During controversial times, it is helpful to remember that heated moments subside, and history reflects that. “Right answers” are hard to come by, but at the end of the day, a university that can keep its campus community safe and facilitate productive conversations is doing its job pretty well.

Refresher Course: How free is speech in public schools?

Every other Tuesday, the team behind Civics 101 joins NHPR’s All Things Considered host Julia Furukawa to talk about how our democratic institutions actually work.

Civics 101’s host Nick Capodice joins Julia this week to talk about free speech in schools, what students are allowed to express or say and what they aren’t.

You can listen to Civics 101  here , or wherever you get your podcasts.

Nick, tell me about the case that started it all for free speech in schools.

Yeah, there's a bunch of cases about free speech in schools, but the big one is Tinker v. Des Moines [Independent Community School District]. It's a Supreme Court case from 1969. This is the seminal First Amendment case that deals with the freedom of speech in schools.

The central character is Mary Beth Tinker, sort of a personal hero of mine. I've had the great fortune to meet her a couple of times. Mary Beth, her brother John, and some other folks in 1965 wore black armbands to their school. And this was a protest. They were protesting the deaths on both sides in Vietnam. They were expelled for this act of protest. They challenged it, worked its way through the courts and Mary Beth won. The Tinkers won their case 7 to 2. And the famous quote, like the thing anybody should take away from this when they hear it, is from [Justice] Abe Fortas’ decision. He said, “Teachers and students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

And this case created what we call the Tinker Standard, which is this: whatever kids say in school can be protected speech as long as it is not disruptive. That's the magic word, disruptive.

Okay, well, what does disruptive really mean, Nick? I mean, how do we or the courts define that? 

Well, Julia, that's very tricky. You know, like almost all Supreme Court cases when you sort of winnow down to sort of the core of it, to its essence, you got to rule it on a case-by-case basis. Is X disruptive? Is Y disruptive? Threatening speech can be disruptive. Hateful speech can be disruptive. Just yelling in class, just yelling over the teacher, that's a disruption. Anything that disrupts the functioning of a school can be disruptive and therefore not protected speech.

So is disruptiveness the only benchmark when it comes to free speech in schools?

No, not anymore. After Tinker v. Des Moines, lots of other decisions came down throughout the years that tightened restrictions on speech in school, most notably Bethel [School District] v. Fraser. That's a case where a student was punished for making an obscene speech. Fraser lost the case, and the court then said, okay, vulgar speech can also be prohibited in schools.

Top stories of the day, 3X a week - subscribe today!

And then later, another case, Hazelwood [School District] v. Kuhlmeier, it extended to words in a school newspaper [that] can be censored.

And then the last one, my personal favorite: Morse v. Frederick. Any language referencing drug use can be banned. The court had ruled against a student for holding up a now famous cryptic banner that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

Well, these standards all seem to be pretty open to different interpretations. I mean, what's disruptive to me might not be disruptive to you. And that also applies to what's obscene or offensive. So how are students supposed to know exactly what they're allowed to say or express in schools and what they're not?

That's really the hard part. And I would like to say that I think it's rather unfortunate that young American students have to be the ones to figure out, well, what can I say and what can't I say if there aren't really clear rules laid out for them?

I guess what you can say is, if it's not disruptive or vulgar, or in a school newspaper or related to drug use, according to Supreme Court precedent, it should be protected speech. However, when schools like the one I went to have, for example, a dress code and other such rules, it can be really hard to find that line between expressing yourself and breaking a school rule.

You make NHPR possible.

NHPR is nonprofit and independent. We rely on readers like you to support the local, national, and international coverage on this website. Your support makes this news available to everyone.

Give today. A monthly donation of $5 makes a real difference.

• Presidential Search
• Editor's Pick

Jeremy Weinstein Was Offered the Harvard Kennedy School Deanship. Who Is He?

Interim Harvard President Alan Garber’s 100 Days of Trial By Fire

‘Mourning into a Movement’: Family Members of George Floyd, Eric Garner Discuss Grief and Activism at IOP Forum

Expert Witness Says Northrop’s Lack of Summer Contact Was ‘Typical’ for University Case Workers

Harvard Residential Advisers Allege University Administrators Engaged in Union-Busting Tactics

Academic Freedom and Free Speech Are Distinct. Both Matter.

All year we’ve bandied about phrases like “civil discourse,” “open inquiry,” “academic freedom,” and “free speech.” It’s time to clarify them, and what living by them requires.

“Civil discourse” and “open inquiry” name an aspiration to discourse where disagreements — even fierce ones — can spark mutual learning because we engage with each other earnestly and respectfully. They promise a world where good-faith arguments, directed toward truth-seeking, bound by standards of evidence and logic, and inclusive of all perspectives, are welcome — even when they run counter to a majority point of view.

If “civil discourse” and “open inquiry” are the “what” of good discourse on campus, “academic freedom” and “free speech” are the “how.” Often used interchangeably, both phrases name specific policy regimes governing types of speech, but there is a critical difference between them.

Academic freedom is a creature of colleges and universities and specifically protects the right to make arguments in academic contexts, subject to review of one’s work according to scholarly standards.

Free speech rights, in contrast, name a protection against governmental interference restricting speech in the public sphere. In the U.S., they are broadly defined by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The first set of protocols is organizational — The policies of universities; the second set is legal — governmental policy.

Academic spaces — including classrooms, labs, seminars, and public events sponsored by academic units — should resemble a courtroom. To achieve a verdict — Latin for “speaking the truth” — trials require witnesses for both sides.

So too in the academy. We should always want to hear the other side’s best arguments. This requires intellectual diversity — of methods, data sources, and normative frameworks, as well as viewpoints.

The need for multiple viewpoints is why academic freedom goes hand in hand with inclusion and belonging: Protecting and supporting the participation of people with diverse identities or divergent ideologies is necessary for robust academic inquiry.

But diversity of perspective doesn’t mean “anything goes.”

When a journal article is submitted without appropriate pursuit of the truth, the submission may be rejected or receive a “revise and resubmit” notice, an invitation to the author to try again. Speaker panels, too, can be judged to be ill-constructed and receive notice that further work is needed before they see the light of day.

These are not cases of cancellation or sanctioning — they reflect a legitimate evaluation of the contribution’s caliber with regard to truth-seeking.

Similarly, policies against classroom disruption, which protect the academic freedom required to sustain inquiry, do not violate free speech rights, because the classroom is not where free speech rights apply. Instead, policies against disruption protect the right of people to make the best argument they can, from whatever their point of view may be, in pursuit of the truth.

Yet free speech, including the right to protest, also matters on campus. How, why, and where should protests receive protection here?

At a public university, free speech rights follow directly from First Amendment rights. The state sponsorship of universities like U.C. Berkeley or UMass-Boston makes university leaders state representatives with formal legal obligations to respect free speech.

But at a private university, free speech rights are a privilege granted by the university in a public-spirited effort to contribute additional public spaces to those otherwise available for political debate — street corners, parks, some coffee shops, the Internet, and so on.

Though Harvard was founded by officials of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and technically continues to be legally accountable to the state legislature, Harvard is nonetheless considered a private university. As such, it is out of a public-spirited orientation that our University treats parts of the campus as the public sphere, where expression is broadly more protected than under the more constrained norms of academic freedom.

Speaking loosely, free speech rights apply in spaces and to events that are both extracurricular and public. These are, of course, fuzzy categories on a campus, hence our confusion.

For example: At the Harvard Kennedy School, the Institute of Politics clearly functions as a public forum, so protests against its speakers that adhere to the “time, place, and manner” restrictions on free speech on our campus can be expected and must be respected there.

Other public speaker events also fall into this category, as does speech that takes place in our outdoor public space. But what about key campus rituals — from Commencement, or Match Day in the medical school, or weekly Community Teas at the Divinity School?

To address these edge cases, we rely on the following principle: Wherever spaces and events are integral to academic work and experience, they should be off-limits to disruption.

But perhaps this rules out too much? With our harsh winters, for instance, perhaps we need indoor spaces that can serve as public forums, with sensible restrictions?

Such questions deserve our more direct attention. Maybe we need a campus map that identifies places and hours where free speech rights, rather than the protocols of academic freedom, apply.

Still, even under free speech norms, it’s not the case that anything goes. The fifth value in the University’s values statement assigns us “responsibility for the bonds and bridges that enable all to grow with and learn from one another.” As an ethical matter, this value should govern how we choose to express our political views.

Even when we passionately pursue a political cause, using public spaces at Harvard to do so, including Harvard-linked online fora, we do that as a member of this campus community, in compact and covenant with everyone else here.

We cannot forget: Our use of these spaces is a privilege. We should pay for that privilege by taking responsibility for using them in ways that sustain healthy relationships with one another.

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 second 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.

• CBSE Class 10th
• CBSE Class 12th
• UP Board 10th
• UP Board 12th
• Bihar Board 10th
• Bihar Board 12th
• Top Schools in India
• Top Schools in Delhi
• Top Schools in Mumbai
• Top Schools in Chennai
• Top Schools in Hyderabad
• Top Schools in Kolkata
• Top Schools in Pune
• Top Schools in Bangalore

Products & Resources

• JEE Main Knockout April
• Free Sample Papers
• Free Ebooks
• NCERT Notes
• NCERT Syllabus
• NCERT Books
• RD Sharma Solutions
• Navodaya Vidyalaya Admission 2024-25
• NCERT Solutions
• NCERT Solutions for Class 12
• NCERT Solutions for Class 11
• NCERT solutions for Class 10
• NCERT solutions for Class 9
• NCERT solutions for Class 8
• NCERT Solutions for Class 7
• JEE Main 2024
• MHT CET 2024
• JEE Advanced 2024
• BITSAT 2024
• View All Engineering Exams
• Colleges Accepting B.Tech Applications
• Top Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Engineering Colleges Accepting JEE Main
• Top IITs in India
• Top NITs in India
• Top IIITs in India
• JEE Main College Predictor
• JEE Main Rank Predictor
• MHT CET College Predictor
• AP EAMCET College Predictor
• GATE College Predictor
• KCET College Predictor
• JEE Advanced College Predictor
• View All College Predictors
• JEE Main Question Paper
• JEE Main Cutoff
• JEE Main Answer Key
• JEE Main Result
• Download E-Books and Sample Papers
• Compare Colleges
• B.Tech College Applications
• JEE Advanced Registration
• MAH MBA CET Exam
• View All Management Exams

Colleges & Courses

• MBA College Admissions
• MBA Colleges in India
• Top IIMs Colleges in India
• Top Online MBA Colleges in India
• MBA Colleges Accepting XAT Score
• BBA Colleges in India
• XAT College Predictor 2024
• SNAP College Predictor
• NMAT College Predictor
• MAT College Predictor 2024
• CMAT College Predictor 2024
• CAT Percentile Predictor 2023
• CAT 2023 College Predictor
• CMAT 2024 Registration
• TS ICET 2024 Registration
• CMAT Exam Date 2024
• MAH MBA CET Cutoff 2024
• Download Helpful Ebooks
• List of Popular Branches
• QnA - Get answers to your doubts
• IIM Fees Structure
• AIIMS Nursing
• Top Medical Colleges in India
• Top Medical Colleges in India accepting NEET Score
• Medical Colleges accepting NEET
• List of Medical Colleges in India
• List of AIIMS Colleges In India
• Medical Colleges in Maharashtra
• Medical Colleges in India Accepting NEET PG
• NEET College Predictor
• NEET PG College Predictor
• NEET MDS College Predictor
• DNB CET College Predictor
• DNB PDCET College Predictor
• NEET Application Form 2024
• NEET PG Application Form 2024
• NEET Cut off
• NEET Online Preparation
• Download Helpful E-books
• LSAT India 2024
• Colleges Accepting Admissions
• Top Law Colleges in India
• Law College Accepting CLAT Score
• List of Law Colleges in India
• Top Law Colleges in Delhi
• Top Law Collages in Indore
• Top Law Colleges in Chandigarh
• Top Law Collages in Lucknow

Predictors & E-Books

• CLAT College Predictor
• MHCET Law ( 5 Year L.L.B) College Predictor
• AILET College Predictor
• Sample Papers
• Compare Law Collages
• Careers360 Youtube Channel
• CLAT Syllabus 2025
• CLAT Previous Year Question Paper
• AIBE 18 Result 2023
• NID DAT Exam
• Pearl Academy Exam

Animation Courses

• Animation Courses in India
• Animation Courses in Bangalore
• Animation Courses in Mumbai
• Animation Courses in Pune
• Animation Courses in Chennai
• Animation Courses in Hyderabad
• Design Colleges in India
• Fashion Design Colleges in Bangalore
• Fashion Design Colleges in Mumbai
• Fashion Design Colleges in Pune
• Fashion Design Colleges in Delhi
• Fashion Design Colleges in Hyderabad
• Fashion Design Colleges in India
• Top Design Colleges in India
• Free Design E-books
• List of Branches
• Careers360 Youtube channel
• NIFT College Predictor
• UCEED College Predictor
• NID DAT College Predictor
• IPU CET BJMC
• JMI Mass Communication Entrance Exam
• IIMC Entrance Exam
• Media & Journalism colleges in Delhi
• Media & Journalism colleges in Bangalore
• Media & Journalism colleges in Mumbai
• List of Media & Journalism Colleges in India
• CA Intermediate
• CA Foundation
• CS Executive
• CS Professional
• Difference between CA and CS
• Difference between CA and CMA
• CA Full form
• CMA Full form
• CS Full form
• CA Salary In India

Top Courses & Careers

• Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com)
• Master of Commerce (M.Com)
• Company Secretary
• Cost Accountant
• Charted Accountant
• Credit Manager
• Financial Advisor
• Top Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Government Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Private Commerce Colleges in India
• Top M.Com Colleges in Mumbai
• Top B.Com Colleges in India
• IT Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• IT Colleges in Uttar Pradesh
• MCA Colleges in India
• BCA Colleges in India

Quick Links

• Information Technology Courses
• Programming Courses
• Web Development Courses
• Data Analytics Courses
• Big Data Analytics Courses
• RUHS Pharmacy Admission Test
• Top Pharmacy Colleges in India
• Pharmacy Colleges in Pune
• Pharmacy Colleges in Mumbai
• Colleges Accepting GPAT Score
• Pharmacy Colleges in Lucknow
• List of Pharmacy Colleges in Nagpur
• GPAT Result
• GPAT 2024 Admit Card
• GPAT Question Papers
• NCHMCT JEE 2024
• Mah BHMCT CET
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Delhi
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Hyderabad
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Mumbai
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Maharashtra
• B.Sc Hotel Management
• Hotel Management
• Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology

Diploma Colleges

• Top Diploma Colleges in Maharashtra
• UPSC IAS 2024
• SSC CGL 2024
• IBPS RRB 2024
• Previous Year Sample Papers
• Free Competition E-books
• Sarkari Result
• QnA- Get your doubts answered
• UPSC Previous Year Sample Papers
• CTET Previous Year Sample Papers
• SBI Clerk Previous Year Sample Papers
• NDA Previous Year Sample Papers

Upcoming Events

• NDA Application Form 2024
• UPSC IAS Application Form 2024
• CDS Application Form 2024
• CTET Admit card 2024
• HP TET Result 2023
• SSC GD Constable Admit Card 2024
• UPTET Notification 2024
• SBI Clerk Result 2024

Other Exams

• SSC CHSL 2024
• UP PCS 2024
• UGC NET 2024
• RRB NTPC 2024
• IBPS PO 2024
• IBPS Clerk 2024
• IBPS SO 2024
• Top University in USA
• Top University in Canada
• Top University in Ireland
• Top Universities in UK
• Top Universities in Australia
• Best MBA Colleges in Abroad
• Business Management Studies Colleges

Top Countries

• Study in USA
• Study in UK
• Study in Canada
• Study in Australia
• Study in Ireland
• Study in Germany
• Study in China
• Study in Europe

Student Visas

• Student Visa Canada
• Student Visa UK
• Student Visa USA
• Student Visa Australia
• Student Visa Germany
• Student Visa New Zealand
• Student Visa Ireland
• CUET PG 2024
• IGNOU B.Ed Admission 2024
• DU Admission 2024
• UP B.Ed JEE 2024
• DDU Entrance Exam
• IIT JAM 2024
• IGNOU Online Admission 2024
• Universities in India
• Top Universities in India 2024
• Top Colleges in India
• Top Universities in Uttar Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Bihar
• Top Universities in Madhya Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Tamil Nadu 2024
• Central Universities in India
• CUET Exam City Intimation Slip 2024
• IGNOU Date Sheet
• CUET Mock Test 2024
• CUET Admit card 2024
• CUET PG Syllabus 2024
• CUET Participating Universities 2024
• CUET Previous Year Question Paper
• CUET Syllabus 2024 for Science Students
• E-Books and Sample Papers
• CUET Exam Pattern 2024
• CUET Exam Date 2024
• CUET Syllabus 2024
• IGNOU Exam Form 2024
• IGNOU Result
• CUET Courses List 2024

Engineering Preparation

• Knockout JEE Main 2024
• Test Series JEE Main 2024
• JEE Main 2024 Rank Booster

Medical Preparation

• Knockout NEET 2024
• Test Series NEET 2024
• Rank Booster NEET 2024

Online Courses

• JEE Main One Month Course
• NEET One Month Course
• IBSAT Free Mock Tests
• IIT JEE Foundation Course
• Knockout BITSAT 2024
• Career Guidance Tool

Top Streams

• IT & Software Certification Courses
• Engineering and Architecture Certification Courses
• Programming And Development Certification Courses
• Business and Management Certification Courses
• Marketing Certification Courses
• Health and Fitness Certification Courses
• Design Certification Courses

Specializations

• Digital Marketing Certification Courses
• Cyber Security Certification Courses
• Artificial Intelligence Certification Courses
• Business Analytics Certification Courses
• Data Science Certification Courses
• Cloud Computing Certification Courses
• Machine Learning Certification Courses
• View All Certification Courses
• UG Degree Courses
• PG Degree Courses
• Short Term Courses
• Free Courses
• Online Degrees and Diplomas
• Compare Courses

Top Providers

• Coursera Courses
• Udemy Courses
• Edx Courses
• Swayam Courses
• upGrad Courses
• Simplilearn Courses
• Great Learning Courses

Access premium articles, webinars, resources to make the best decisions for career, course, exams, scholarships, study abroad and much more with

Plan, Prepare & Make the Best Career Choices

Education Should Be Free Essay in English

In most countries, education is a fundamental human right. And in some countries, it's considered so important that tuition is free for everyone, regardless of income or social status. Here are some sample essays on why education should be free.

100 Words Essay On Education Should Be Free

Quality education is important. In today's economy, it's more important than ever but the cost of a higher education can be prohibitive. That's why free education should be a priority for our country. It's an investment in our future, and it will pay dividends for decades to come.

A quality education is the key to unlocking opportunity and prosperity for all Indians. Everyone should have access to a quality education, regardless of their status or background. It is the one thing that can break the cycle of poverty, and it is the one thing that can give hope to the next generation.

200 Words Essay On Education Should Be Free

The benefits of free education are innumerable. Free education is a valuable investment in our future.

Benefits of Free Education

When education is free, more people have access to it. This means that more people can improve their lives by learning new skills and getting better jobs.

In addition, free education helps to level the playing field. It gives everyone an opportunity to improve their lives, regardless of their socioeconomic status. This is important because it helps to break the cycle of poverty and ensures that everyone has a chance to succeed. Furthermore, free education could also help bridge the gap between different socioeconomic levels and reduce inequality.

Free education bridges cultural divides: when people from all backgrounds can learn together in a safe and supported space, the result is often a greater sense of understanding and acceptance across demographics. Free education provides an opportunity to make real change on a broader scale, by improving people’s lives through financial and social stability.

By providing free education, we are creating a generation of knowledgeable and skilled workers who will help our economy thrive. By offering students the opportunity to continue their studies, society will gain a reliable, productive workforce that would benefit future generations.

500 Words Essay On Education Should Be Free

In today's society, education plays an even more important role in the development of our world. Unfortunately, not every student can support their education, as most of them do not have strong finances to get into their desired school and continue their future studies.

An effective free education policy might require changes to the way teachers are trained, which can be a major undertaking considering the current system in many countries is already overburdened. Finding ways to motivate and retain teachers in an environment where they won’t be as financially incentivized is also an important piece of this puzzle.

Social Benefits of Free Education

When it comes to the social benefits of free education, one of the most significant is the impact it can have on poverty. By ensuring that everyone has access to education, regardless of their socioeconomic status, this can open up opportunities for people who had previously been excluded from higher learning.

Students who receive free education are also able to break out of poverty by finding better jobs and earning higher salaries over time. This in turn helps promote economic growth, as well as create a more equal society.

Educational Equity Issues That Could Be Addressed by Free Education

The primary benefit of free education is that it would make higher learning more accessible to lower-income individuals and families who may not be able to afford college tuition. This would open up opportunities that may not have been available previously, helping those who are most in need gain access to a quality education.

It would also ensure that everyone has the same opportunity to pursue their academic dreams without worrying about finances. Free education would create a level playing field for everyone, regardless of their financial background, giving them an equal chance for success.

The Impact of Universal Education

Universal education would have a positive impact not only at the micro level but also on a macro level. Countries with higher rates of education can experience increased economic growth and improved labour productivity.

If everyone was afforded a quality education for free, the world would be in a better place. People would be better equipped to make sound financial decisions, drive innovation, and participate in civic life.

Finally, if all people had access to quality educational resources regardless of their socio-economic status or background, there could be an increase in social cohesion as well as an improved sense of belonging within society. This could lead to increased communication between different classes of people and help bridge the gap between us all.

Challenges to Achieving Free Education

In most countries, the majority of funding comes from taxpayers. When talking about free education, one of the biggest challenges is finding ways to pay for it.

Another challenge is providing access to quality education. Even if tuition fees are eliminated, there are still costs associated with materials, resources and other learning aids that can put many people at a disadvantage. That’s why it’s important to make sure that any policy aimed at providing free education takes into account the resources necessary for students to get the best out of their studies.

Explore Career Options (By Industry)

• Construction
• Entertainment
• Manufacturing
• Information Technology

Data Administrator

Database professionals use software to store and organise data such as financial information, and customer shipping records. Individuals who opt for a career as data administrators ensure that data is available for users and secured from unauthorised sales. DB administrators may work in various types of industries. It may involve computer systems design, service firms, insurance companies, banks and hospitals.

Bio Medical Engineer

The field of biomedical engineering opens up a universe of expert chances. An Individual in the biomedical engineering career path work in the field of engineering as well as medicine, in order to find out solutions to common problems of the two fields. The biomedical engineering job opportunities are to collaborate with doctors and researchers to develop medical systems, equipment, or devices that can solve clinical problems. Here we will be discussing jobs after biomedical engineering, how to get a job in biomedical engineering, biomedical engineering scope, and salary. 

Ethical Hacker

A career as ethical hacker involves various challenges and provides lucrative opportunities in the digital era where every giant business and startup owns its cyberspace on the world wide web. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path try to find the vulnerabilities in the cyber system to get its authority. If he or she succeeds in it then he or she gets its illegal authority. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path then steal information or delete the file that could affect the business, functioning, or services of the organization.

GIS officer work on various GIS software to conduct a study and gather spatial and non-spatial information. GIS experts update the GIS data and maintain it. The databases include aerial or satellite imagery, latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates, and manually digitized images of maps. In a career as GIS expert, one is responsible for creating online and mobile maps.

Data Analyst

The invention of the database has given fresh breath to the people involved in the data analytics career path. Analysis refers to splitting up a whole into its individual components for individual analysis. Data analysis is a method through which raw data are processed and transformed into information that would be beneficial for user strategic thinking.

Data are collected and examined to respond to questions, evaluate hypotheses or contradict theories. It is a tool for analyzing, transforming, modeling, and arranging data with useful knowledge, to assist in decision-making and methods, encompassing various strategies, and is used in different fields of business, research, and social science.

Geothermal Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as geothermal engineers are the professionals involved in the processing of geothermal energy. The responsibilities of geothermal engineers may vary depending on the workplace location. Those who work in fields design facilities to process and distribute geothermal energy. They oversee the functioning of machinery used in the field.

Database Architect

If you are intrigued by the programming world and are interested in developing communications networks then a career as database architect may be a good option for you. Data architect roles and responsibilities include building design models for data communication networks. Wide Area Networks (WANs), local area networks (LANs), and intranets are included in the database networks. It is expected that database architects will have in-depth knowledge of a company's business to develop a network to fulfil the requirements of the organisation. Stay tuned as we look at the larger picture and give you more information on what is db architecture, why you should pursue database architecture, what to expect from such a degree and what your job opportunities will be after graduation. Here, we will be discussing how to become a data architect. Students can visit NIT Trichy , IIT Kharagpur , JMI New Delhi . 

Remote Sensing Technician

Individuals who opt for a career as a remote sensing technician possess unique personalities. Remote sensing analysts seem to be rational human beings, they are strong, independent, persistent, sincere, realistic and resourceful. Some of them are analytical as well, which means they are intelligent, introspective and inquisitive. 

Remote sensing scientists use remote sensing technology to support scientists in fields such as community planning, flight planning or the management of natural resources. Analysing data collected from aircraft, satellites or ground-based platforms using statistical analysis software, image analysis software or Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a significant part of their work. Do you want to learn how to become remote sensing technician? There's no need to be concerned; we've devised a simple remote sensing technician career path for you. Scroll through the pages and read.

Budget Analyst

Budget analysis, in a nutshell, entails thoroughly analyzing the details of a financial budget. The budget analysis aims to better understand and manage revenue. Budget analysts assist in the achievement of financial targets, the preservation of profitability, and the pursuit of long-term growth for a business. Budget analysts generally have a bachelor's degree in accounting, finance, economics, or a closely related field. Knowledge of Financial Management is of prime importance in this career.

Underwriter

An underwriter is a person who assesses and evaluates the risk of insurance in his or her field like mortgage, loan, health policy, investment, and so on and so forth. The underwriter career path does involve risks as analysing the risks means finding out if there is a way for the insurance underwriter jobs to recover the money from its clients. If the risk turns out to be too much for the company then in the future it is an underwriter who will be held accountable for it. Therefore, one must carry out his or her job with a lot of attention and diligence.

Finance Executive

Product manager.

A Product Manager is a professional responsible for product planning and marketing. He or she manages the product throughout the Product Life Cycle, gathering and prioritising the product. A product manager job description includes defining the product vision and working closely with team members of other departments to deliver winning products.  

Operations Manager

Individuals in the operations manager jobs are responsible for ensuring the efficiency of each department to acquire its optimal goal. They plan the use of resources and distribution of materials. The operations manager's job description includes managing budgets, negotiating contracts, and performing administrative tasks.

Stock Analyst

Individuals who opt for a career as a stock analyst examine the company's investments makes decisions and keep track of financial securities. The nature of such investments will differ from one business to the next. Individuals in the stock analyst career use data mining to forecast a company's profits and revenues, advise clients on whether to buy or sell, participate in seminars, and discussing financial matters with executives and evaluate annual reports.

A Researcher is a professional who is responsible for collecting data and information by reviewing the literature and conducting experiments and surveys. He or she uses various methodological processes to provide accurate data and information that is utilised by academicians and other industry professionals. Here, we will discuss what is a researcher, the researcher's salary, types of researchers.

Welding Engineer

Welding Engineer Job Description: A Welding Engineer work involves managing welding projects and supervising welding teams. He or she is responsible for reviewing welding procedures, processes and documentation. A career as Welding Engineer involves conducting failure analyses and causes on welding issues. 

Transportation Planner

A career as Transportation Planner requires technical application of science and technology in engineering, particularly the concepts, equipment and technologies involved in the production of products and services. In fields like land use, infrastructure review, ecological standards and street design, he or she considers issues of health, environment and performance. A Transportation Planner assigns resources for implementing and designing programmes. He or she is responsible for assessing needs, preparing plans and forecasts and compliance with regulations.

Environmental Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as an environmental engineer are construction professionals who utilise the skills and knowledge of biology, soil science, chemistry and the concept of engineering to design and develop projects that serve as solutions to various environmental problems. 

Safety Manager

A Safety Manager is a professional responsible for employee’s safety at work. He or she plans, implements and oversees the company’s employee safety. A Safety Manager ensures compliance and adherence to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) guidelines.

Conservation Architect

A Conservation Architect is a professional responsible for conserving and restoring buildings or monuments having a historic value. He or she applies techniques to document and stabilise the object’s state without any further damage. A Conservation Architect restores the monuments and heritage buildings to bring them back to their original state.

Structural Engineer

A Structural Engineer designs buildings, bridges, and other related structures. He or she analyzes the structures and makes sure the structures are strong enough to be used by the people. A career as a Structural Engineer requires working in the construction process. It comes under the civil engineering discipline. A Structure Engineer creates structural models with the help of computer-aided design software. 

Highway Engineer

Highway Engineer Job Description:  A Highway Engineer is a civil engineer who specialises in planning and building thousands of miles of roads that support connectivity and allow transportation across the country. He or she ensures that traffic management schemes are effectively planned concerning economic sustainability and successful implementation.

Field Surveyor

Are you searching for a Field Surveyor Job Description? A Field Surveyor is a professional responsible for conducting field surveys for various places or geographical conditions. He or she collects the required data and information as per the instructions given by senior officials. 

Orthotist and Prosthetist

Orthotists and Prosthetists are professionals who provide aid to patients with disabilities. They fix them to artificial limbs (prosthetics) and help them to regain stability. There are times when people lose their limbs in an accident. In some other occasions, they are born without a limb or orthopaedic impairment. Orthotists and prosthetists play a crucial role in their lives with fixing them to assistive devices and provide mobility.

Pathologist

A career in pathology in India is filled with several responsibilities as it is a medical branch and affects human lives. The demand for pathologists has been increasing over the past few years as people are getting more aware of different diseases. Not only that, but an increase in population and lifestyle changes have also contributed to the increase in a pathologist’s demand. The pathology careers provide an extremely huge number of opportunities and if you want to be a part of the medical field you can consider being a pathologist. If you want to know more about a career in pathology in India then continue reading this article.

Veterinary Doctor

Speech therapist, gynaecologist.

Gynaecology can be defined as the study of the female body. The job outlook for gynaecology is excellent since there is evergreen demand for one because of their responsibility of dealing with not only women’s health but also fertility and pregnancy issues. Although most women prefer to have a women obstetrician gynaecologist as their doctor, men also explore a career as a gynaecologist and there are ample amounts of male doctors in the field who are gynaecologists and aid women during delivery and childbirth. 

Audiologist

The audiologist career involves audiology professionals who are responsible to treat hearing loss and proactively preventing the relevant damage. Individuals who opt for a career as an audiologist use various testing strategies with the aim to determine if someone has a normal sensitivity to sounds or not. After the identification of hearing loss, a hearing doctor is required to determine which sections of the hearing are affected, to what extent they are affected, and where the wound causing the hearing loss is found. As soon as the hearing loss is identified, the patients are provided with recommendations for interventions and rehabilitation such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, and appropriate medical referrals. While audiology is a branch of science that studies and researches hearing, balance, and related disorders.

An oncologist is a specialised doctor responsible for providing medical care to patients diagnosed with cancer. He or she uses several therapies to control the cancer and its effect on the human body such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy and biopsy. An oncologist designs a treatment plan based on a pathology report after diagnosing the type of cancer and where it is spreading inside the body.

Are you searching for an ‘Anatomist job description’? An Anatomist is a research professional who applies the laws of biological science to determine the ability of bodies of various living organisms including animals and humans to regenerate the damaged or destroyed organs. If you want to know what does an anatomist do, then read the entire article, where we will answer all your questions.

For an individual who opts for a career as an actor, the primary responsibility is to completely speak to the character he or she is playing and to persuade the crowd that the character is genuine by connecting with them and bringing them into the story. This applies to significant roles and littler parts, as all roles join to make an effective creation. Here in this article, we will discuss how to become an actor in India, actor exams, actor salary in India, and actor jobs. 

Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats create and direct original routines for themselves, in addition to developing interpretations of existing routines. The work of circus acrobats can be seen in a variety of performance settings, including circus, reality shows, sports events like the Olympics, movies and commercials. Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats must be prepared to face rejections and intermittent periods of work. The creativity of acrobats may extend to other aspects of the performance. For example, acrobats in the circus may work with gym trainers, celebrities or collaborate with other professionals to enhance such performance elements as costume and or maybe at the teaching end of the career.

Video Game Designer

Career as a video game designer is filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. A video game designer is someone who is involved in the process of creating a game from day one. He or she is responsible for fulfilling duties like designing the character of the game, the several levels involved, plot, art and similar other elements. Individuals who opt for a career as a video game designer may also write the codes for the game using different programming languages.

Depending on the video game designer job description and experience they may also have to lead a team and do the early testing of the game in order to suggest changes and find loopholes.

Radio Jockey

Radio Jockey is an exciting, promising career and a great challenge for music lovers. If you are really interested in a career as radio jockey, then it is very important for an RJ to have an automatic, fun, and friendly personality. If you want to get a job done in this field, a strong command of the language and a good voice are always good things. Apart from this, in order to be a good radio jockey, you will also listen to good radio jockeys so that you can understand their style and later make your own by practicing.

A career as radio jockey has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. If you want to know more about a career as radio jockey, and how to become a radio jockey then continue reading the article.

Choreographer

The word “choreography" actually comes from Greek words that mean “dance writing." Individuals who opt for a career as a choreographer create and direct original dances, in addition to developing interpretations of existing dances. A Choreographer dances and utilises his or her creativity in other aspects of dance performance. For example, he or she may work with the music director to select music or collaborate with other famous choreographers to enhance such performance elements as lighting, costume and set design.

Social Media Manager

A career as social media manager involves implementing the company’s or brand’s marketing plan across all social media channels. Social media managers help in building or improving a brand’s or a company’s website traffic, build brand awareness, create and implement marketing and brand strategy. Social media managers are key to important social communication as well.

Photographer

Photography is considered both a science and an art, an artistic means of expression in which the camera replaces the pen. In a career as a photographer, an individual is hired to capture the moments of public and private events, such as press conferences or weddings, or may also work inside a studio, where people go to get their picture clicked. Photography is divided into many streams each generating numerous career opportunities in photography. With the boom in advertising, media, and the fashion industry, photography has emerged as a lucrative and thrilling career option for many Indian youths.

An individual who is pursuing a career as a producer is responsible for managing the business aspects of production. They are involved in each aspect of production from its inception to deception. Famous movie producers review the script, recommend changes and visualise the story. 

They are responsible for overseeing the finance involved in the project and distributing the film for broadcasting on various platforms. A career as a producer is quite fulfilling as well as exhaustive in terms of playing different roles in order for a production to be successful. Famous movie producers are responsible for hiring creative and technical personnel on contract basis.

Copy Writer

In a career as a copywriter, one has to consult with the client and understand the brief well. A career as a copywriter has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. Several new mediums of advertising are opening therefore making it a lucrative career choice. Students can pursue various copywriter courses such as Journalism , Advertising , Marketing Management . Here, we have discussed how to become a freelance copywriter, copywriter career path, how to become a copywriter in India, and copywriting career outlook. 

In a career as a vlogger, one generally works for himself or herself. However, once an individual has gained viewership there are several brands and companies that approach them for paid collaboration. It is one of those fields where an individual can earn well while following his or her passion. 

Ever since internet costs got reduced the viewership for these types of content has increased on a large scale. Therefore, a career as a vlogger has a lot to offer. If you want to know more about the Vlogger eligibility, roles and responsibilities then continue reading the article. 

For publishing books, newspapers, magazines and digital material, editorial and commercial strategies are set by publishers. Individuals in publishing career paths make choices about the markets their businesses will reach and the type of content that their audience will be served. Individuals in book publisher careers collaborate with editorial staff, designers, authors, and freelance contributors who develop and manage the creation of content.

Careers in journalism are filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. One cannot afford to miss out on the details. As it is the small details that provide insights into a story. Depending on those insights a journalist goes about writing a news article. A journalism career can be stressful at times but if you are someone who is passionate about it then it is the right choice for you. If you want to know more about the media field and journalist career then continue reading this article.

Individuals in the editor career path is an unsung hero of the news industry who polishes the language of the news stories provided by stringers, reporters, copywriters and content writers and also news agencies. Individuals who opt for a career as an editor make it more persuasive, concise and clear for readers. In this article, we will discuss the details of the editor's career path such as how to become an editor in India, editor salary in India and editor skills and qualities.

Individuals who opt for a career as a reporter may often be at work on national holidays and festivities. He or she pitches various story ideas and covers news stories in risky situations. Students can pursue a BMC (Bachelor of Mass Communication) , B.M.M. (Bachelor of Mass Media) , or  MAJMC (MA in Journalism and Mass Communication) to become a reporter. While we sit at home reporters travel to locations to collect information that carries a news value.  

Corporate Executive

Are you searching for a Corporate Executive job description? A Corporate Executive role comes with administrative duties. He or she provides support to the leadership of the organisation. A Corporate Executive fulfils the business purpose and ensures its financial stability. In this article, we are going to discuss how to become corporate executive.

Multimedia Specialist

A multimedia specialist is a media professional who creates, audio, videos, graphic image files, computer animations for multimedia applications. He or she is responsible for planning, producing, and maintaining websites and applications. 

Quality Controller

A quality controller plays a crucial role in an organisation. He or she is responsible for performing quality checks on manufactured products. He or she identifies the defects in a product and rejects the product. 

A quality controller records detailed information about products with defects and sends it to the supervisor or plant manager to take necessary actions to improve the production process.

Production Manager

A QA Lead is in charge of the QA Team. The role of QA Lead comes with the responsibility of assessing services and products in order to determine that he or she meets the quality standards. He or she develops, implements and manages test plans. 

Process Development Engineer

The Process Development Engineers design, implement, manufacture, mine, and other production systems using technical knowledge and expertise in the industry. They use computer modeling software to test technologies and machinery. An individual who is opting career as Process Development Engineer is responsible for developing cost-effective and efficient processes. They also monitor the production process and ensure it functions smoothly and efficiently.

AWS Solution Architect

An AWS Solution Architect is someone who specializes in developing and implementing cloud computing systems. He or she has a good understanding of the various aspects of cloud computing and can confidently deploy and manage their systems. He or she troubleshoots the issues and evaluates the risk from the third party. 

Azure Administrator

An Azure Administrator is a professional responsible for implementing, monitoring, and maintaining Azure Solutions. He or she manages cloud infrastructure service instances and various cloud servers as well as sets up public and private cloud systems. 

Computer Programmer

Careers in computer programming primarily refer to the systematic act of writing code and moreover include wider computer science areas. The word 'programmer' or 'coder' has entered into practice with the growing number of newly self-taught tech enthusiasts. Computer programming careers involve the use of designs created by software developers and engineers and transforming them into commands that can be implemented by computers. These commands result in regular usage of social media sites, word-processing applications and browsers.

Information Security Manager

Individuals in the information security manager career path involves in overseeing and controlling all aspects of computer security. The IT security manager job description includes planning and carrying out security measures to protect the business data and information from corruption, theft, unauthorised access, and deliberate attack 

ITSM Manager

Automation test engineer.

An Automation Test Engineer job involves executing automated test scripts. He or she identifies the project’s problems and troubleshoots them. The role involves documenting the defect using management tools. He or she works with the application team in order to resolve any issues arising during the testing process. 

Applications for Admissions are open.

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

Get up to 90% scholarship on NEET, JEE & Foundation courses

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Chemistry formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

ALLEN NEET Coaching

Ace your NEET preparation with ALLEN Online Programs

SAT® | CollegeBoard

Registeration closing on 19th Apr for SAT® | One Test-Many Universities | 90% discount on registrations fee | Free Practice | Multiple Attempts | no penalty for guessing

TOEFL ® Registrations 2024

Thinking of Studying Abroad? Think the TOEFL® test. Register now & Save 10% on English Proficiency Tests with Gift Cards

Resonance Coaching

Enroll in Resonance Coaching for success in JEE/NEET exams

Everything about Education

Latest updates, Exclusive Content, Webinars and more.

Download Careers360 App's

Regular exam updates, QnA, Predictors, College Applications & E-books now on your Mobile

Cetifications

We Appeared in

Table of Contents

Speech codes subvert higher ed’s core purpose. here’s how to fix them..

• Laura Beltz

Shutterstock.com

Each year, FIRE releases a  report on the trends we see in our  Spotlight database of speech codes — which compiles the written policies that govern student speech at nearly 500 colleges and universities across the country. And each year, we get the same questions:

• What’s the problem with speech codes? 
• Does FIRE think there shouldn’t be  any limits to what sort of speech is allowed?

Aren’t restrictions on when and where students can express themselves outside the classroom okay, to limit disruptions? 

Aren’t civility codes necessary to create an environment that supports civil discourse .

• Is FIRE doing anything to help fix speech codes?

With  our latest annual report released last month, we thought we’d take the opportunity to answer each of these common questions.

What’s the problem with speech codes?

“Speech code” is the general term we use for policies that restrict speech that is protected under First Amendment standards. Such restrictions are unconstitutional at public colleges, and the vast majority of private schools commit in writing to protecting student free speech rights, so they’re impermissible there, too. 

Speech codes subvert the central purpose of an institution of higher education: the pursuit of knowledge. If students are unable to research and debate all topics, including the most challenging or controversial ones, this purpose goes unfulfilled. 

New FIRE report finds 85% of top colleges have restrictive speech codes

Press release.

FIRE’s 2024 Spotlight on Speech Codes report rates 489 of America’s top colleges and universities on the degree to which their policies restrict student speech.

This impact isn’t limited to four years on campus. College students who hear that it’s best for those in authority to control what they can say and hear will expect that to continue after graduation. As a result, the idea that controversial viewpoints should be censored carries over to boardrooms and legislatures. The impulse to censor instead of debate, disagree, and craft arguments should not be the lasting legacy of a college education. 

Some colleges, after seeing how FIRE rates their policies, have argued they don’t actually apply the policies as restrictively as they are written. But that isn’t good enough. The presence of bad policies on the books that can be invoked at any time can chill speech even when administrators aren’t in the practice of using them to punish protected expression. 

Instead, colleges must create an environment in which students know they can explore and express themselves on all topics without fearing the administration will censor them using an overbroad or vague policy. 

Does FIRE think there shouldn’t be any limits to what sort of speech is allowed?

No. There are reasonable  exceptions to the First Amendment defined and refined over years of judicial deliberation. Colleges must look to these exceptions in defining prohibited conduct rather than using poorly defined or undefined terms. 

For example, taking action against conduct that constitutes harassment doesn’t violate the First Amendment. However, some schools’ harassment policies contain laughably broad language. Alabama A&M University, for one,  defines sexual harassment as any “unwelcome and unsolicited . . . verbal, visual or physical conduct or communication with sexual overtones that the victim deems offensive.” And to be sure, some unwelcome sexual communication could create a hostile environment,  per the standard set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in  Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education . However, Alabama A&M’s policy encompasses a lot more than that. 

For example, if a student on their way to class simply sees another student holding a sign with a protest slogan on it that they find offensive (maybe “ this pussy grabs back ”), that isn’t sexual harassment. But if the other student repeatedly shows up outside a classmate’s dorm room with the sign, yelling their message and refusing to stop, that may indeed constitute hostile environment harassment. Alabama A&M’s policy prohibits  both , which means students interested in engaging in protected speech with a controversial message may be too worried about being punished to do so. 

The prevalence of overbroad rules on when, where, and how students can express themselves means too many students are discouraged from getting out on their campus and sharing their views.   

This is an unacceptable result, and it’s not just hypothetical. Stockton University, for example, wielded its harassment policy to investigate a student for  using a photo of Donald Trump as a Zoom background; American University investigated students for  sharing pro-choice views in a group chat.

Bias reporting policies — which establish procedures for reporting speech others find expresses prejudice toward a person or group with particular characteristics — can also create  serious threats to free expression on campus.

Some of these policies are written narrowly, seeking reports of unlawful harassment, threats, and other types of conduct that aren’t protected by the First Amendment. Others cast a wide net, seeking reports of all subjectively biased speech. Either way, schools need to clarify what happens when a report they receive concerns protected speech. 

Any ambiguity here means students must assume they may be forced to meet with administrators for “educational” or “remedial” opportunities at best or receive formal punishment at worst. Suddenly, that debate on trans issues or that research into policing statistics may now seem like a bad idea. The result: Students may keep their mouths shut.

Whether in their policies around harassment, bias reporting, or First Amendment exceptions, colleges must follow the lead of First Amendment jurisprudence. 

Yes! — with some important caveats.  Under the First Amendment, public colleges (and private colleges that protect free speech rights) may put in place reasonable “time, place, and manner restrictions” on demonstrations in order to limit disruptions to regular college activities and functions. However, a  valid time, place, and manner regulation of a public forum must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest,” and it must “leave open ample alternative channels for communication.” 

Those caveats — that the restriction needs to be reasonable, narrowly tailored (i.e., not heavy-handed in achieving its goal), and that it needs to leave other options for students to reach their intended audience — are where colleges often misstep. 

Unprotected Speech Synopsis

Issue pages.

FIRE's guide to speech not protected by the First Amendment for educators and students outlining incitement, threats, defamation, and hate speech

For example, a school might understandably want advance notice before students conduct an outdoor event that is likely to cause a disruption on campus — not because of the content or viewpoint of the event, but because it involves a large number of attendees or needs something like sound amplification equipment. And some further restrictions on certain indoor events may be reasonable, given students conducting a demonstration indoors could block hallways or disrupt classes. 

But some schools go much further than is necessary to eliminate potential disruptions. 

The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, for example,  tells students they must inform campus police 48 hours in advance of using the university’s sole designated area for demonstrations, whether they’re a group of three students or three hundred. Again, it makes sense to require large groups to use certain areas on campus for capacity reasons and to give notice in advance. But applying that rule to  everyone isn’t reasonable. 

Some argue that in order to create a campus environment where students can learn and debate productively, colleges need to enforce certain standards of civility. FIRE thinks this is a dangerous impulse. 

In an example of one such policy, Evergreen State College binds students to its “Social Contract,”  which states : “The individual members of the Evergreen community are responsible for protecting each other and visitors on campus … from uncivil abuse. Civility is not just a word; it must be present in all our interactions.”

But civility is in the eye of the beholder. Take the way different people interpret the phrases “Black Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter” — allowing campus administrators to decide what speech is too hostile to be expressed means they have the power to discriminate based on viewpoint. And, unfortunately, FIRE’s case history shows civility requirements are  all   too   often wielded in this way. 

Threatening punishment over failure to conform to amorphous standards of civility only creates a chilling environment for expression. 

Requiring civility from students can even limit their ability to persuade others. As  one federal judge put it , “mandating civility could deprive speakers of the tools they most need to connect emotionally with their audience, to move their audience to share their passion.”

To be sure, colleges can set  aspirational standards of civility towards which students can strive, and they can  teach students about engaging productively with those with whom they disagree. And, when inside the classroom, faculty have wide latitude in managing that setting, and can ask students to stop speaking if they’re being disruptive or off-topic.

However, threatening punishment over failure to conform to amorphous standards of civility only creates a chilling environment for expression. 

Finally: Is FIRE doing anything to help fix speech codes?

We sure are. The purpose of publicizing our annual report on speech codes isn’t merely to name and shame colleges. 

First of all, we’ve developed a  model code of student conduct for colleges looking to adopt speech-protective policies. We also maintain a  list of model policies currently in use by colleges and universities that other schools may consider. Colleges can also use our Spotlight database’s search function to find policies that earn a “green light” rating from FIRE, meaning they don’t seriously imperil free speech. ( Here , for example, I searched for colleges with a green-light protest policy.)

FIRE staffers are also  available to consult with schools free of charge, and can make recommendations on how to improve policies and review and provide feedback on drafts of new or revised speech codes. 

If a school you care about is one of the vast majority of colleges with policies that restrict student speech, consider partnering with FIRE to change that. 

• Faculty Rights
• Speech Codes
• Student Rights

Recent Articles

FIRE’s award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

FIRE statement on campus violence and arrests

BREAKING: New Title IX regulations undermine campus free speech and due process rights

STATEMENT: Title IX regs mean students less likely to receive justice

Stanford president and provost cheer free expression in open letter to incoming class

Related articles, big win for students, faculty as furman university adopts free speech statement, cornell falls short with new expression policy and guidance on faculty political speech, repressive executive order from unc chapel hill student government cuts off funding for pro-life individuals, causes, something’s fishy at texas a&m: administrators continue to reel in student groups’ rights with hostile fish camp takeover, draggieland denial, victory emory law recognizes free speech student group after seven months of viewpoint-based rejection , fire calls on the university of maryland to end deferred recruitment policy for greek life.

• Share this selection on Twitter
• Share this selection via email

• One-time / Monthly Donations
• Sponsorship (organizations)
• Newsletters / SMS
• Health Care
• Agriculture
• Oklahoma Elections
• History of the Oklahoma Legislature
• State public resources
• Canadian County
• Cleveland County
• Comanche County
• Oklahoma County
• Tulsa County
• Tribal Nation Pages
• Oklahoma energy resources

Oklahoma politics launched with constitutional chaos

DEI programs should broaden access to higher education without limiting free speech, inquiry

Drummond alleges cold, hard facts in pair of Winter Storm Uri cases

Cloudy eclipse could add sadness during darkness

While weird, bunny ears still healthier than Peeps

I n December, Gov. Kevin Stitt issued Executive Order 2023-31 , which prohibits Oklahoma institutions of higher education from using state funds to “grant or support diversity, equity, and inclusion positions, departments, activities, procedures or programs to the extent they grant preferential treatment based on one person’s particular race, color, sex, ethnicity, or national origin over another’s.” The order also required state colleges and universities to conduct a review of their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and activities to ensure they do not violate the executive order and to modify or eliminate them if they do. Institutions and agencies are also required to submit a report about their DEI programs by May 31.

Stitt’s order followed an interim study by the Oklahoma Senate in which representatives from conservative public policy organizations such as the Goldwater Institute and The Heritage Foundation provided information critical of DEI programs. Sen. Rob Standridge ( R-Norman ), who requested the study, had also authored multiple bills for the 2024 legislative session to eliminate DEI programs from the state’s colleges and universities.

Critics responded that eliminating these programs threatens needed “ safe and inclusive ” spaces for “minority and marginalized communities on higher education campuses,” amounts to an effort to “ erase Native Americans from history ,” and risks future economic development in the state. The presidents of the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University issued statements referring to Stitt’s action as a “step backwards” and affirming their “passion to do what’s right.” (OU went a step further, initially claiming the order was “eliminating” its DEI programs. Later, OU’s president said its DEI programs would simply be rebranded .)

This debate forces us to address an important question: How can we ameliorate past injustices without hampering academic freedom? As faculty members from two of our state’s institutions of higher education, we believe we are in a unique position to offer some important insights on this topic.

Rectifying past discrimination

It should be no secret that Oklahoma has a history of legal discrimination against minorities. Senate Bill 1 , the first piece of legislation introduced in the Oklahoma Senate, established racial segregation in public transportation. Similarly, a constitutional amendment instituting a “grandfather clause” was passed soon after statehood to limit voter eligibility among Black residents and prevent African American Rep. A.C. Hamlin ( R-Logan County ) from being reelected.

The state’s history of discrimination can also be found in its institutions of higher education, where two civil rights cases opened up higher education to minorities and formed the foundation for the more famous case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Both Ada Lois Sipuel v. Board of Regents (1948) and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) saw the U.S. Supreme Court strike down racial segregation in higher education programs in Oklahoma.

While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned legal discrimination in higher education, many recognized that merely eliminating the prior-existing restrictions would not sufficiently undo the past discrimination against racial, ethnic, religious and gender minorities. Affirmative action programs emerged in higher education to broaden access to historically discriminated-against groups.

At their best, DEI programs continue to expand educational opportunities to groups historically discriminated against by providing them the resources with which they can be successful in college . Critics of DEI programs would do well to recognize that the task of making our university campuses a true reflection of our diverse society is still unfinished business and that intentional institutional efforts are still merited.

Enforcing ideological commitments

However, sometime in the 2010s, DEI programs began to go beyond this core mandate of outreach and support to marginalized communities, with some insisting upon enforcement of ideological commitments that are largely incompatible with the central mission of higher education: the pursuit of knowledge , and the freedom of speech and academic inquiry upon which that pursuit relies.

Recent episodes at Stanford Law School , Hamline University , and Harvard University — among many others — demonstrate a growing hostility to free speech and the freedom of academic inquiry that has emerged on college campuses. In addition, “bias response teams,” which have developed under DEI auspices at universities across the U.S. (see MIT , the University of Maryland , and Smith College as examples), have been active in encouraging students to report (often anonymously) any perceived comments by other students or faculty that they may find “offensive.” The offenders sometimes endure investigations without ever being told what they were investigated for and without the protections of due process. The imposition of “diversity” statements in faculty applications is another example of an attempt to enforce a specific way of thinking upon college faculty.

Oklahoma is not immune to this phenomenon. The 2018 case of Professor Brian McCall of the OU Law School stands as one of the more egregious examples. Branded “homophobic” and “sexist” by The OU Daily , McCall was forced out of his positions as associate dean for academic affairs and associate director of the OU Law Center for controversial passages in his 2014 book To Build the City of God: Living as Catholics in a Secular Age , which was aimed at an audience of fellow-traditionalist Catholics.

While we both may disagree with the sentiments expressed in McCall’s book, these beliefs alone provide no grounds for dismissal from administrative positions. They are views held by millions of traditionalist religious adherents, including Muslims and Orthodox Jews who also happen to be our fellow citizens. McCall lost those administrative positions despite an investigation into the matter finding “no evidence of workplace harassment or discrimination.” However, OU eventually settled a lawsuit filed by McCall over the matter. While it does not appear that OU’s DEI office was involved in the campaign against McCall, DEI offices across the nation have been associated with similar activities.

In their 2018 book, The Coddling of the American Mind , authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt coined the term “Safetyism” to describe the rationale that campus administrators often use to restrict free speech. According to Lukianoff and Haidt, students have come to expect protection from opinions and ideas that make them feel “uncomfortable.” The authors also chronicle the emergence of an environment where words are considered violence and in which students feel justified using actual violence to stop a campus speech with which they disagree. Safetyism is a rationale that has been used to suppress speech coming from the left as well as the right (and center ).

In the name of diversity and inclusion, viewpoint diversity sometimes has been squelched. This constriction of free-speech rights on college campuses is one that DEI supporters have been loath to acknowledge. However, the role some DEI administrators have played in the shrinking of academic freedom should be recognized and addressed.

How to move forward

How do we make our student bodies more diverse without compromising the values of free speech? We advocate an intentional, institutional commitment to diversity and inclusion, which is data-driven and which rejects zero-sum logic.

Harvard economist Roland Fryer argues DEI efforts should be based upon data rather than poorly-informed intuitions . Researchers such as Fryer and others are showing the way by applying the tools of social science to better understand what raw gaps in employment, educational achievement and income do and do not tell us about bias at both the individual and institutional levels.

Interestingly, data suggest either that DEI programs have no established impact on bias, that the impact is not long-lived , or that the impact is, in fact, negative . With the empirical work indicating that how we promote diversity and inclusivity is ineffective and possibly counterproductive, perhaps we should reevaluate what we are doing.

In addition, our efforts must get beyond the notion that we operate in a zero-sum environment. Broadening access to educational opportunities does not have to mean others are excluded from that opportunity. Opponents of DEI institutional efforts need to realize that we all benefit from the creativity and talent from others and should not feel threatened by efforts to recruit students from different socioeconomic backgrounds, racial and ethnic backgrounds and religious backgrounds. Having intelligent and intellectually curious students from all walks of life improves our campus environments and ultimately the societies those campuses serve.

However, universities and institutions that keep the DEI acronym should handle the term “equity” with care. The traditional understanding of equity considers it as providing disadvantaged groups with the tools they need to succeed — a notion that merits broad support. However, the zero-sum context in which the term is too often understood and implemented presumes that for those same disadvantaged groups to be successful, those from other groups must lose or be prohibited from exercising their rights. Controversy over placing equity considerations above academic standards at the K-12 level and in higher education has received pushback, as such efforts may have actually harmed the very students they were intended to help. As interpreted by some, the principle of equity can become problematic if it presumes the only just outcomes are “ equal outcomes .” And some proponents of equity presume any differences in group outcomes to be the result of bias. As Fryer argues in the article referenced above, this is both anti-science and counterproductive.

Finally, we also endorse Harvard Professor of psychology Steven Pinker’s recommendations for protecting academic freedom and the Heterodox Academy ’s values of open inquiry, viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement (called the HxA Way ). Ultimately, we do not believe the goals of diversity and inclusion are incompatible with free speech or protections for academic inquiry. In fact, rather than sacrificing one to the other, we must recognize that these goals can and should be mutual.

( Editor’s note : The views expressed in this commentary are solely the views of the authors and do not represent the views of their academic institutions or Heterodox Academy, of which both authors are members. )

RELATED ARTICLES

Education negotiations: House proposal flat, Senate seeks staff stipend, other items

Roundup: SJR 34 failed despite McCall email, OSDE rules questioned, Slavonic to leave ODVA

‘New layer of transparency’: House sees Senate spreadsheet, raises online budget dashboard

After two years, foster family gets fishing license for special needs high schooler

Popular Articles

OKC Planning Commission advances massive Legends Tower, proposed jail site

OKCPS class sizes increasing as pandemic funds expire, board approves big bond agreement

• Terms, copyright and conditions
• Privacy statement

Education Should Be Free Essay

Table of Contents

Education Should Be Free Essay: Education is the key to personal growth and societal progress. It empowers individuals with knowledge, critical thinking skills, and opportunities, enabling them to fulfill their potential and contribute positively to their communities. Education is the foundation upon which a brighter and more equitable future is built. However, the cost of education can often be a significant barrier to accessing knowledge and opportunities.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Free education is essential as it breaks down financial barriers, ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to acquire knowledge and skills. It empowers individuals, promotes social equality, and contributes to a more educated and prosperous society, ultimately fostering progress and innovation. In this article, we’ll explore the idea that education should be free and provide sample essays of varying lengths to support this argument.

Education Should Be Free Essay 1: 150 Words

The concept of free education is rooted in the belief that access to knowledge should not be limited by one’s ability to pay. Education is not just a personal benefit but a societal one, as it leads to a more informed and empowered citizenry. When education is free, it breaks down economic barriers and opens doors to countless opportunities. One of the key advantages of free education is the reduction of inequality. It levels the playing field, enabling individuals from diverse backgrounds to access the same quality of education. This fosters social mobility, where talent and effort are the primary determinants of success.

Furthermore, free education has economic benefits. A well-educated workforce is more likely to contribute to a nation’s economic growth. It leads to a higher-skilled labor market, innovation, and increased productivity, all of which are vital for a nation’s competitiveness on the global stage.

In conclusion, the idea of free education is not just an idealistic notion but a practical and necessary step for societal progress. It promotes equality, empowers individuals, and strengthens economies, making it a worthwhile investment for any nation.

Essay on Education Should Be Free 2: 250 Words

Education is often referred to as the great equalizer, a means by which individuals can overcome socio-economic disparities and achieve their full potential. However, the rising costs of education have created barriers for many, limiting their access to this invaluable resource. This essay argues that education should be free, as it benefits not only individuals but society as a whole.

First and foremost, free education promotes equality and social mobility. It ensures that every person, regardless of their financial background, has the opportunity to pursue higher education. This levels the playing field and allows individuals to advance based on their merit and hard work rather than their financial resources.

Moreover, free education has economic advantages. A well-educated workforce is essential for a nation’s economic growth and competitiveness. It leads to higher productivity, innovation, and a more skilled labor market. When education is accessible to all, it contributes to a stronger and more prosperous economy.

Furthermore, free education benefits society by fostering an informed and engaged citizenry. Educated individuals are more likely to participate in civic activities, make informed decisions, and contribute positively to their communities. They are also better equipped to address societal challenges and drive innovation.

Critics may argue that free education is costly for governments, but the long-term benefits far outweigh the initial investment. Studies have shown that the economic returns from an educated workforce more than compensate for the costs of providing free education.

In conclusion, education should be free because it is a fundamental right and a public good. It promotes equality, social mobility, economic growth, and civic engagement. By making education accessible to all, we invest in a brighter and more prosperous future for individuals and society as a whole.

Education Should Be Free Essay 3 – 400 Words

Education is often regarded as the cornerstone of personal and societal development. It equips individuals with knowledge, skills, and opportunities that can transform lives and contribute to the betterment of society as a whole. However, the cost of education can be a formidable barrier for many, limiting access and perpetuating inequalities. In this essay, we will argue why education should be free, focusing on the benefits it offers to individuals and society.

First and foremost, free education promotes equality of opportunity. It ensures that individuals from all backgrounds, regardless of their economic circumstances, have the same access to quality education. When education is not contingent on one’s ability to pay, it levels the playing field, allowing talent and effort to be the primary determinants of success. This results in a more equitable society where everyone has a fair chance to achieve their aspirations.

Furthermore, free education is an investment in human capital and economic growth. A well-educated workforce is essential for a nation’s prosperity. It leads to increased productivity, innovation, and competitiveness on the global stage. When individuals are educated, they are more likely to contribute positively to the workforce, driving economic development and reducing dependency on social welfare programs.

Additionally, free education benefits society by fostering an informed and engaged citizenry. Educated individuals are more likely to participate in civic activities, make informed decisions, and contribute to their communities. They are equipped to address societal challenges, advocate for positive change, and drive innovation in various fields.

Critics may argue that providing free education is financially burdensome for governments. However, studies have shown that the long-term economic returns from an educated populace far outweigh the initial costs. Moreover, free education can be funded through various means, such as progressive taxation or reallocating budget priorities, ensuring that it is a sustainable and worthwhile investment.

In conclusion, education should be free because it is a fundamental right and a public good. It promotes equality, social mobility, economic growth, and civic engagement. By making education accessible to all, we empower individuals to reach their full potential and contribute to a more equitable and prosperous society. Free education is not just an idealistic notion but a practical necessity for building a brighter and more inclusive future for individuals and society as a whole.

Education Should Be Free Essay 4: 500 Words

Education is the key to personal and societal advancement. It has the power to transform lives, break the cycle of poverty, and pave the way for a more equitable and prosperous society. However, the cost of education has become a significant barrier for many, limiting access to knowledge and opportunities. In this essay, we will make a compelling case for why education should be free, discussing the benefits it brings to individuals and society at large.

Equality of Opportunity

One of the most compelling arguments in favor of free education is its role in promoting equality of opportunity. Education should not be a privilege reserved for those who can afford it; it should be a universal right. When education is free, it ensures that individuals from all socio-economic backgrounds have the same access to quality learning. This levels the playing field, allowing talent and determination to be the primary factors in achieving success. It ensures that no one is left behind simply because of their financial circumstances.

Economic Prosperity

Free education is not just a social justice issue; it is also an economic imperative. A well-educated workforce is essential for a nation’s economic growth and competitiveness in the global arena. When individuals have access to higher education without the burden of crushing student debt, they are more likely to pursue careers that align with their passions and skills. This leads to increased productivity, innovation, and a more dynamic labor market.

Furthermore, educated individuals tend to earn higher incomes over their lifetimes, which, in turn, results in increased tax revenues for the government. This revenue can be reinvested in education and other critical public services, creating a positive feedback loop that benefits society as a whole.

Informed and Engaged Citizens

Education is not just about acquiring knowledge; it is also about fostering critical thinking and civic engagement. Educated individuals are more likely to participate in civic activities, vote in elections, and make informed decisions. They have the tools to analyze complex issues, advocate for positive change, and contribute meaningfully to their communities.

Education also plays a pivotal role in addressing societal challenges. It equips individuals with the skills and knowledge needed to tackle pressing issues such as climate change, healthcare disparities, and social inequality. By investing in education, we empower a new generation to be the problem solvers and change-makers of tomorrow.

Financial Feasibility

Critics often argue that providing free education is financially unsustainable. However, numerous studies have shown that the long-term economic benefits far outweigh the initial costs. Moreover, there are various ways to fund free education, such as implementing progressive taxation or reallocating budget priorities.

Additionally, countries that have already implemented free or heavily subsidized education models have seen positive outcomes. For example, in countries like Germany and Finland, where higher education is largely free, they have not only achieved high levels of educational attainment but also maintained robust economies.

In conclusion, education should be free because it is a fundamental human right and a powerful catalyst for individual and societal progress. Free education promotes equality of opportunity, fosters economic prosperity, and nurtures informed and engaged citizens. It is a wise investment that benefits not only individuals but also society as a whole.

By making education accessible to all, we empower individuals to reach their full potential and contribute positively to their communities. In a world where knowledge is an essential currency, free education is not just an idealistic aspiration; it is a practical necessity for building a brighter and more inclusive future for individuals and society as a whole.

Other Topics:

FAQs on Education Should Be Free Essay

Should education be free.

Yes, education should be free because it promotes equality of opportunity, fosters economic growth, and empowers individuals to contribute to society.

Can education be made free in India?

While achieving entirely free education in India may be challenging, there are ways to reduce the financial burden on students and make education more affordable through government subsidies, scholarships, and policy reforms.

Why is free education required in our society?

Free education is required in our society to ensure that knowledge and opportunities are accessible to all, regardless of their financial background. It reduces inequality, fosters economic development, and empowers individuals to become informed, engaged citizens who can address societal challenges and contribute positively to their communities.

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

Harvard is named worst school for free speech — scoring zero out of possible 100

Harvard University is officially 2023’s worst school for free speech.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) released their annual college free speech rankings on Wednesday, which dubbed the state of free speech at the Ivy League school “abysmal.”

“I’m not totally surprised,” Sean Stevens, director of polling and analytics at FIRE, told The Post. “We’ve done these rankings for years now, and Harvard is consistently near the bottom.”

Despite being the most acclaimed academic institution in the country, Harvard received a 0.00 point free speech ranking on a 100 point scale — a full 11 points behind the next worst school.

FIRE says the dismal score was “generous,” considering Harvard’s actual score was a -10.69, according to their calculations.

Harvard’s score was dragged down by the fact that nine professors and researchers at Harvard faced calls to punished or fired based on what they had said or written — and seven of the nine were actually professionally disciplined.

“I thought it would be pretty much impossible for a school to fall below zero, but they’ve had so many scholar sanctions,” Stevens said.

The score is calculated based on factors including how strong the school’s policies in favor of free speech are and how many professors, students, and campus speakers have been targeted by authorities for their speech.

Bonuses are applied if the school’s administrators stood up for the rights of those whose free speech was threatened.

The rankings also take into account student sentiment about free speech based on polling FIRE conducted in partnership with research firm College Pulse.

Harvard’s lowest rank comes despite the fact that more than 100 of its professors banded together earlier this year to form a Council on Academic Freedom to defend open inquiry on campus.

“We are in a crisis time right now,” Janet Halley, a Harvard Law School professor and member of the Council, told The Post in April. “Many, many people are being threatened with — and actually put through — disciplinary processes for their exercise of free speech and academic freedom.”

Second worst on the list was the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, followed by the University of South Carolina in Columbia, Georgetown University in DC, and Fordham University in the Bronx and Manhattan.

Although Columbia University took the prize of worst school for free speech last year, it ranked 214th out of 248 this time around.

The number one school for free speech was Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Michigan. The school earned 78.01 out of 100 possible points. 

“I’m not necessarily surprised that a technological school has a better speech climate, primarily for the reason that they don’t really talk as much about controversial topics,” Stevens said. “They’re there to make things work as engineers.”

Auburn University, the University of New Hampshire, Oregon State University, and Florida State University rounded out the top five.

FIRE’s survey of 55,000 current students from 254 universities also yielded some staggering results.

56% of students worry about getting cancelled for something they said, and 27% said it’s acceptable to use violence to stop campus speech in some circumstances.

As FIRE continues to be inundated with allegations of free speech violations, Stevens says the erosion of campus discourse should concern everyone.

“I’d say the state of free speech on campus is stagnant at best, and possibly a little worse than last year.”

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

I Teach a Class on Free Speech. My Students Can Show Us the Way Forward.

By Sophia Rosenfeld

Ms. Rosenfeld is a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Democracy and Truth: A Short History.”

Free speech is very hard to get right, especially on campus — as has been evident all fall at the University of Pennsylvania, where I teach a course on the history of free speech and censorship. If colleges and universities are best understood as microcosms of the larger world, they should be governed by the First Amendment alone. This would mean restricting only speech that directly incites violence, threatens specific individuals or constitutes targeted harassment.

But if colleges and universities — public or private — are better understood as special spaces with missions distinct from the world at large, they need some special rules of operation, tailored to the classroom, the student club and the college green.

One problem is that neither the left nor the right knows which model fits, making it difficult to determine any fair boundaries for campus speech. The politics around free speech have also shifted. And norms about what counts as dangerous speech and what ought to be done about its articulation have been changing faster than any of us can keep up with them.

No wonder students are confused when it comes to speech on campus right now. Frankly, so are faculties, administrators and, yes, donors and trustees. This may help explain why university presidents are finding themselves in a bind, unable to articulate fully consistent positions — and in the case of the University of Pennsylvania’s now-former President Elizabeth Magill , being sacrificed in the process. (Full disclosure: Ms. Magill is a friend.)

But the answer to all this confusion can’t simply be to update campus bylaws. Rather, we need to come up with better forms of speech education, keyed to the very purpose of the university, that give students the tools to work through the hard cases themselves.

The treacherousness of the current moment has been building for some time. For much of the 20th century, free speech was a rallying cry for the left, a way of sticking up for Communists, anarchists, pacifists and student activists. In recent years, though, this hasn’t been the dominant story line. In the United States, it has been the political right that has taken on the absolute free speech mantle, at least rhetorically, and it is the left that has been at the forefront of efforts to protect minorities from the harms of certain kinds of speech, from hate speech to microaggressions.

Now, abruptly, the sides have reversed once again. Left-leaning voices, in support of Palestinian liberation, have embraced academic freedom, demanding that universities protect unpopular speech and speakers. Meanwhile, conservatives have gone all in for book bans ; prohibitions on teaching critical race theory , among other ostensibly radical ideas ; and now crackdowns on a range of pro-Palestinian expressions.

Charges of antisemitism (some accurate, others a cover for efforts to stifle criticism of Israeli government policy or the war in Gaza) have helped make this new censorship palatable. The congressional hearing with the presidents of Penn, Harvard and M.I.T. was primarily political theater, an hourslong episode in our continuing culture wars. But already a backlash to this brand of conservative censorship has set in, led by organizations like FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Through all the flip-flopping on both the right and the left, the unsettled question of what the university is actually for has gone unaddressed.

But the sky really isn’t falling. Twice a week in my classroom, 40 or so students from different racial, ethnic, national, religious and political backgrounds have been trying hard to understand debates about the boundaries of acceptable speech in various places and times. They have been grappling with what those boundaries should be now, including for hate speech, sedition and more. Even as the topics have crept steadily closer to home, focusing on college presidents’ statements about Israel/Gaza and the language of pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, these discussions have gone remarkably well. Students have waited their turn, listened to one another and, often, disagreed respectfully.

My students also report that they are treading lightly outside the classroom as they take on the issues of the moment in their own spaces. They say they are more worried about causing offense with their choices of words or being found ill informed than they are about scoring points. Rather than digging in with dogmatic positions, most of them seem as unsure as the rest of us about just where the lines are.

Mainly, I think my students can remind us of the purpose of higher education and, consequently, the kind of speech culture it demands. What they have learned in my free speech class, I hope, is not just the history of laws around speech but also two different but complementary ways of navigating speech, each of them tied to a different function of the modern university.

Students go to college largely to gain knowledge that will be useful in the here and now: the workplace, the democratic public sphere and private life. Importantly, that includes how to think about all sides of a given problem. It also includes how to get along with others across differences. But neither of these tasks is done without some informal rules. In my classroom, when we are conversing about the history of speech, we are also following a series of speech protocols that we’ve worked out in practice. No one, for example, can speak on top of anyone else, and no one can personalize the conversation in ways that draw attention to individuals rather than arguments. Free speech was never imagined, even by its earliest advocates , as a free-for-all. This is something that needs to be instilled.

College, though, is also the place where one learns to question and to develop thoughtful critiques of the world one is being prepared to enter. If we think of the university as a training ground for imagining a better world — whether from a left, right, center or altogether different perspective — then a very wide latitude for speech is essential as well. Any position that has political salience in today’s discourse should be sayable on campus, whether formally moderated in a classroom or screamed on the quad. No, that does not mean we have to give space to pure expressions of hatred for any group of people or, in the example of last week, tolerate hypothetical calls for genocide . But it does mean we have to allow for, even encourage, the airing of varied positions on all unsettled questions, including those that turn on the expression “from the river to the sea” or the term “intifada,” like it or not.

This mixture of rules and freedoms makes for a difficult standard. It gets harder all the time as student bodies become more diverse, outside politics become more polarized and the internet amplifies the sensational and turns the local into the global in an instant.

But universities have to make it their mission to train students to think about these principles and, even more, the rationales behind this combination of speech rules and freedoms. Then we have to let students and others who are living in this environment — not outsiders, whether from Washington or Wall Street — try to work it out in practice. It can be done.

Sophia Rosenfeld is a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Democracy and Truth: A Short History.” Her book “The Choice Is Yours” is forthcoming in 2024.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , X and Threads .