In recent years, in an effort to reduce hate crimes and protect minorities, many universities have adopted codes and policies that prohibit offensive speech based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. While university administrators may see free speech policies as an attractive solution to all of these problems, experience has shown us that restrictions on free speech on campus create even more complications and confrontations among students. By adopting codes of discourse, universities would do nothing but close the discussion instead of solving the actual problem. Furthermore, even if speech regulations were not prohibited by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, it would be impossible to enforce them fairly. I believe that restrictions on free speech would not only harm the entire educational process, but would also endanger the future of our democratic society. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayIn my opinion, expressing and discussing is the only way to resolve a controversial issue. Speech codes have not stopped hate speech. They diverted the dialogue from a focus on a just society to concern about censorship ( McMasters 173). By limiting a certain type of speech, we only seem to find a solution for underlying issues like sexism and ageism. Everyone brings with them the values ​​and assumptions they learned growing up in society when they come to college, so it is unrealistic to think that restrictions on a certain type of self-expression will solve the problem of hate speech or racial slurs on campus. . As one critic said: verbal purity is not a social change. Racist statements, for example, are not the problem between races, racism is. By excluding racially charged comments, we refuse to identify the problem of racism and, as a result, will never be able to solve it. Linguistic codes and regulations can only cure the symptoms and not the disease and, therefore, are absolutely useless. If we do not allow open expression, there can be no change or growth. Speech regulations are not the way forward on campus, where all opinions have the right to be heard, explored, supported, or rejected. Furthermore, when hate is out in the open, people can see the real causes of the problem and address it much more effectively. Racism, sexism, and ageism will not disappear without being addressed in higher education. Some people argue that speech policies on campus can protect students from facing controversial issues like sexism and racism. Mari J. Matsuda argued that hate speech interrupts conversations and prevents us from doing the important work of learning to speak across differences (153). This is simply wrong. I believe that one of the primary purposes of a college education and experience is to teach students how to approach real-life problems, no matter how controversial they may be. Education requires that all forms of speech be protected. By denying a point of view we eliminate open discussion. Without an open forum of thought and the freedom to express oneself, a college education is worth less. Any regulation of language can only limit access to the world of ideas available to us and, therefore, can damage the entire educational process. Just because something is offensive to a person doesn't mean it is offensive by definition. Furthermore, offensive speech is not a (176).