Organization Communication Ethics of a Public University
I am unsure of how many of you heard about this incident on campus, but what do people consider the U of M's role in protecting the freedom of speech of faculty and other publics?
The author of the article Dale Carpenter makes a great point. He states, "a university community–including its faculty, staff, administrators, and students–must cultivate a norm of respect for free speech that goes beyond ensuring mere First Amendment compliance. Members of a university community have an obligation to consider opposing viewpoints and, if not always a duty to listen to them, then at least a duty to allow others to listen to them." In this statement is where I think the U of M's role in protecting freedom of speech lies. Within community of memory in organizational communication ethics permission is granted for an organization to decide what type of communication is allowed to take place and will protect and promote the good of their institution. (139) This specific point in organizational communication ethics should allow the U of M to defend the exchange of ideas. In an academic environment they should be able to promote and allow all types of speech and higher learning from all individuals. For those that think that they don't need to sit quietly and listen when something is happening or someone is speaking at the U of M they have every right to protest and create a forum to share and have their voices heard, but within the walls of the university, I stand on the side of in a non disruptive manor. There are ways to respectfully have your voices heard but still allow for those that act upon their right to choose to listen, to be allowed to listen. The U of M has the right to prohibit disruption to lectures, speakers, and university supported higher learning and I think that they need to continue to enforce such rules to promote their good as an institution for advancement and higher education. With this being said do you think that it will promote more people to speak up ahead of time to have speakers or lecturers, that they disagree with their message, disinvited? Or will situations such as this change the way that the public looks at the "good" that the University is promoting?
The author of the article Dale Carpenter makes a great point. He states, "a university community–including its faculty, staff, administrators, and students–must cultivate a norm of respect for free speech that goes beyond ensuring mere First Amendment compliance. Members of a university community have an obligation to consider opposing viewpoints and, if not always a duty to listen to them, then at least a duty to allow others to listen to them." In this statement is where I think the U of M's role in protecting freedom of speech lies. Within community of memory in organizational communication ethics permission is granted for an organization to decide what type of communication is allowed to take place and will protect and promote the good of their institution. (139) This specific point in organizational communication ethics should allow the U of M to defend the exchange of ideas. In an academic environment they should be able to promote and allow all types of speech and higher learning from all individuals. For those that think that they don't need to sit quietly and listen when something is happening or someone is speaking at the U of M they have every right to protest and create a forum to share and have their voices heard, but within the walls of the university, I stand on the side of in a non disruptive manor. There are ways to respectfully have your voices heard but still allow for those that act upon their right to choose to listen, to be allowed to listen. The U of M has the right to prohibit disruption to lectures, speakers, and university supported higher learning and I think that they need to continue to enforce such rules to promote their good as an institution for advancement and higher education. With this being said do you think that it will promote more people to speak up ahead of time to have speakers or lecturers, that they disagree with their message, disinvited? Or will situations such as this change the way that the public looks at the "good" that the University is promoting?
ReplyDelete