The limits of protest: Claire Finkelstein and Patricia McGuire on free speech on college campuses

College campuses have a long history of student protests, and these demonstrations invite questions about the limits of free speech. How far is too far? In this pair of essays, University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein and Trinity Washington University president Patricia McGuire present two different views of the role of free speech in the university. Read them and consider how your ideas fit into this conversation.

Claire Finkelstein and Patricia McGuire, "Point / Counterpoint: Should University Officials Be Able to Restrict Speech That’s Offensive or Hurtful to Others?" Liberal Education, Winter 2025

 

1. In her piece, Finkelstein argues for stricter rules for free speech on university campuses. Why? How might free speech rights conflict with Title VI protections?
   
2. Finkelstein contends that the current free speech rules model on college campuses “privilege student expression over most other values.” What other values does she think universities should prioritize?
3. McGuire begins her essay with a short personal narrative. What’s the point of this narrative? How does this story support McGuire’s central argument?
4. So what? Who cares? Why does free speech – and restrictions placed on free speech – matter to university administrators? To students and faculty? To people outside the university community? Use a template from Chapter 9 to explain what’s at stake in this conversation.
5. These essays are set up as a pro/con debate. However, McGuire and Finkelstein don’t disagree on everything. Identify a key point or belief about free speech on college campuses that both authors agree with.
6. Respond to the conversation Finkelstein and McGuire are participating in. Which argument persuaded you the most? Why? Use a template from Chapter 4 to frame your response. Draw on your own experiences to support your view.

Comments

[kevon]

I don't believe we should have limited of speak and protects in any context once we start limiting ourselves to anything is when are no longer the land of the free that the founding fathers had planned for us. I disagree with X’s view that freedom should be limited because, look at the current state of the u.s.a it is divided in all matters and when one side disagrees with the other's punishment follows soon after. Both Finkelstein and Mcgurie both agree that if something is done on one side of the fine-tuned balance it would be ruined forever.