Free Speech Confusion: More on Mumford's Ohio Senate Bill #24

Editorialists at Youngstown State and Ohio University share common ground in their diatribes against House Bill 24:

"In a blatant attempt to drastically limit the freedom of expression, which is still protected by the First Amendment last time anyone checked," (Daniel Rinder)

Neither understands the boundaries of freedom of speech. Neither realizes that freedom of speech does not apply to the work place. Neither understands that freedom of expression is limited on college campuses. Hey, guys and gals, why do you think your university has a designated "free speech zone"? You don't enjoy unlimited freedom of expression now, nor would this law impact you.

I agree a classroom should be a safe place to exchange differing ideas and complementary facts, and to do without concern about reprisals for expressing those ideas or facts. However, I believe it is reasonable to expect that classroom discussion be bounded to ideas pertinent to the domain of the class generally, and the topic of discussion specifically.

To advocate that individuals have a right to spew whatever viewpoint they prefer, about any topic, in any classroom, creates a scenario that yields chaos in the classroom. Inhibits a productive dialog and does not reflect an effective learning environment.

As mentioned before, I do not support this law. I do, however support the spirit motivating the law. Specifically, I support the idea that faculty should spend class time on topics that directly pertain to the class. I also believe in the free exchange of different positions as long as those alternate positions are grounded in concepts or facts relevant to the class and the topic under investigation. I also believe students should not be penalized should they, after due consideration of the available evidence, reach a conclusion different from mine.

Ultimately, I am curious: Why do these students feel it is so onerous to ask faculty to use class time teaching their discipline?