Should We Limit Free Speech? Racism, hate speech, and Confederate flags are all hot-button topics you see on the news every day. Although legal under the First Amendment, the debate that usually arises is: Can we censor these reckless actions? Specifically, do private universities have the legal authority to limit free speech? If so, should they really limit free speech? Derek Bok, who is currently a lawyer and educator, served as president of Harvard University and is the author of the article Protecting Free Speech on Campus; this article was published in the Boston Globe in 1991. In the article, Bok strongly states his belief that controversial symbols, hate speech, etc. should all be licensed at Harvard University, as well as all other private universities in the United States. In addition to the fact that the First Amendment legalizes this form of communication, Bok also believes that it gives students and professors the opportunity to speak to possibly misguided and ill-intentioned students, in the hopes that they will change their insensitive beliefs. Support this belief by arguing that censorship of these radical views not only draws more attention to students and their offensive actions, but it can also lead to more protests and publicity for these hurtful beliefs. Ultimately, Bok believes that Harvard University's policy should allow its students to fully access the rights afforded by the First Amendment. Bok believes this approach will deter students who seek attention through their insensitive actions from repeating those actions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay In Bok's article, he primarily structures his argument around the classical model, which incorporates a logical structure that uses the ethos, pathos and logos to support his main argument. First, Bok establishes that the actions taken by Harvard students, waving Confederate flags and swastikas, are legal under the First Amendment's protection of free speech. He then establishes his position on insensitive opinions: "(the) satisfaction it gives students who display these symbols is far outweighed by the discomfort it causes many others" (70). This was a very logical move, showing his disapproval of the students' actions, but it also calms the reader and sets aside any notion that Bok is trying to advocate radical ideas in this article. He also states his first hypothesis, that students who perform callous actions do so for their own gratification. This hypothesis is important because it states that the main reason students show these controversial symbols is to attract attention themselves. Which, he believes, should not be banned at Harvard University because “(disapproval of) a particular form of communication, however, is not sufficient to justify its ban” (70). This statement is the thesis of Bok's article: just because the action or speech is hurtful or insensitive does not mean the community should censor the topic. Bok's first supporting evidence makes sense: "According to the Supreme Court's decision...swastikas or Confederate flags clearly fall within the protection of free speech." » He uses this basis to formulate an ethical assertion: “censorship is so.