Should Sanctions Be Imposed On Students For Using Sp ✓ Solved

Whether sanctions should be imposed on students for using sp

Whether sanctions should be imposed on students for using speech that is offensive to minorities. You will write a one-page Argument Paper. In writing your paper you will state an issue, pick a position, and then state, in one sentence each, premises in support of that position. Once you have written the skeletal form of the argument, you will then provide a paragraph length discussion/explanation of each of your premises and how they support your position and conclusion.

Paper For Above Instructions

Issue and position: The central issue is whether schools should impose sanctions on students for speech that is offensive to minority groups. I argue that sanctions should not be imposed for such speech, because protecting robust free expression in the school environment supports learning, critical thinking, and democratic citizenship, while other means can address harm without chilling dialogue.

Skeletal Premises (one-sentence each)

  1. Premise 1: Upholding robust free expression in schools fosters critical thinking, civic engagement, and the search for truth, even when student speech is uncomfortable or offensive.
  2. Premise 2: Determining what counts as "offensive to minorities" is highly subjective, variable across communities, and prone to bias or abuse without due process protections.
  3. Premise 3: Sanctioning speech risks turning schools into moral adjudication forums, which can undermine the educational goal of teaching respectful dialogue and inquiry rather than punitive conformity.
  4. Premise 4: Non-punitive approaches—such as restorative conversations, education about impact, and structured dialogue—are more effective at reducing harm and promoting inclusion than punitive sanctions.

Discussion and Explanation of Premises

Premise 1 discussion. When students are free to express ideas—even unpopular or provocative ones—schools can nurture critical thinking, encourage evidence-based argument, and prepare students for civic participation beyond the classroom. Historical student expression has often sparked important debate and learning, a dynamic protected by core First Amendment principles in school settings (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969). While schools may regulate disruptive or unsafe speech, broad sanctions against offensive speech risk suppressing inquiry and chilling dissent that are essential to education and personal development (Tinker, 1969; Fraser v. Bethel School District, 1986).

In-text note: The Tinker decision demonstrates that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” when their speech is not substantially disruptive. Fortifying the space for idea-exchange strengthens students’ abilities to evaluate claims, anticipate consequences, and construct reasoned arguments that respect diverse perspectives (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). This supports rejecting broad sanctions as a default response to speech that is merely offensive rather than clearly disruptive or dangerous (Fraser, 1986).

Premise 2 discussion. The criterion of “offensive to minorities” is not a fixed, universally applicable standard; it shifts with context, culture, and power dynamics, and could permit discriminatory enforcement or silence minority voices in matters of dissent. If schools impose sanctions based on subjective judgments about offense, they risk inconsistent application and chilling of legitimate expression, especially for marginalized students who may rely on provocative speech to challenge dominant narratives (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988; Morse v. Frederick, 2007). A fair approach requires narrow, carefully defined limits tied to disruption, safety, or legitimate goals of the curriculum, rather than broad moral policing (Hazelwood, 1988; Morse, 2007).

In-text note: The Hazelwood and Morse decisions illustrate that schools may regulate speech that undermines educational objectives (Hazelwood, 1988; Morse, 2007), but they do not authorize a blanket prohibition on controversial or unpopular speech. This distinction underscores how subjective determinations about offense can lead to arbitrary enforcement if not tethered to objective disruption or safety concerns (Fraser, 1986; Tinker, 1969).

Premise 3 discussion. Punitive sanctions on speech risk reframing schools as venues for moral judgment rather than places of learning, which can undermine trust, dampen open dialogue, and depress students’ willingness to engage in constructive debate about sensitive topics. When schools focus on punishment for what students say, they may neglect addressing the real harms—whether from power imbalances, harassment, or bias—through proportional responses that preserve dialogue while protecting students from harm. A punitive approach can also create resentment and suppress minority students’ voices in classrooms where their perspectives are essential for comprehensive education (academic debates surrounding hate speech, school discipline policies, and inclusive practices inform this view).

In-text note: Research and professional guidelines in education emphasize that schools should foster inclusive climates, address harassment, and promote dialogue without overreaching into blanket censorship. The aim is to balance free expression with safety and respect, rather than to rely on punitive suppression as the default response (APA guidelines on harassment, DOE guidance on harassment and bullying in schools).

Premise 4 discussion. Non-punitive strategies—such as facilitated conversations, restorative practices, and clearly explained explanations of impact—often reduce harm more effectively than sanctions and support long-term inclusion and learning. Restorative approaches acknowledge the harm caused by words while inviting responsible dialogue, helping students understand the consequences of their language and encouraging accountability without deterring future dialogue. These methods align with educational aims of developing judgment, empathy, and public reasoning, and they are supported by educational psychology and school-climate guidelines that favor preventive and restorative interventions over punishment (NASP guidelines; APA and DOE resources on harassment and bias in schools).

In-text note: Effective harm reduction in schools—especially around race and minority status—often requires more than punishment. Restorative justice, dialogue-based interventions, and explicit discussions about the impact of language cultivate a climate where minority voices are heard, while still preserving a robust standard for accountability (NASP, APA guidance, DOE harassment guidance).

Conclusion: Based on the considerations above, sanctions for speech that is offensive to minorities should not be the default remedy in schools. Instead, schools should emphasize structured dialogue, education about the impact of language, and restorative processes that address harm while preserving free expression as a core educational value. This approach upholds the dual aims of protecting individual rights and fostering an inclusive, intellectually rigorous learning environment (Tinker; Fraser; Hazelwood; Morse; DOE guidance; NASP; APA).

References

  • Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
  • Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
  • Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
  • Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).
  • American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). Student Speech in Public Schools. https://www.aclu.org/other/student-speech
  • National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2019). Harassment, Bullying, and Safe School Climate. https://www.nasponline.org
  • U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2010). Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.html
  • American Psychological Association (APA). (2010). Guidance on harassment in schools. https://www.apa.org/pi/about/newsletter/2010/03/harassment
  • Britannica Online. (n.d.). Freedom of expression. https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-expression
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2020). Free Speech. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-speech/

Related Assignments