Essay 1

1)I would need the outline first by 02/14/21

2) summary by 02/20/21 in which
-Use the thesis and key points in your outline to write the summary of the articles,summaries, outlines, and the differences between quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing. Don’t retell the content, but rather condense it in your own words. Cover all the key points, not only those that interest you. Do not include supporting details.
use very few quotes, but lots of paraphrases, so don’t forget your citations. Once you have noted the author’s name once in a citation, you can use page numbers only in subsequent citations.

3)then final draft -Compare and Contrast the Two Articles in an Analysis

-After you’ve revised Summary, add a second part to essay with the subheading Analysis. Here is where you bring in your own ideas; answer why the authors’ points are important (in other words, who does the argument affect), where the authors agree and disagree, what are the benefits and disadvantages of those points, who are the people or ideas left out, whether the author is using unsupported generalizations or fallacious reasoning, and what are the implications of the authors’ ideas or recommendations. analysis should be at least one page in which you do more than simply agree or disagree. Your analysis section is a mini-essay with a thesis stating your evaluation of the strength of each author’s argument, which does not depend on whether you agree or disagree with it.

i have also attached the sample paper which my friend did last year.

message me if you need more information.

ANSWER

Summary

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education offers insights into establishing free-speech zones in the learning environment. It provides students with the opportunity to engage in various issues. This organization proposes that learning institutions should develop free-speech zones that enable learners to hold rallies. However, it also calls for institutional leaders to observe care and caution, especially when engage in controversial topics. “The university has the right to impose restrictions of the speeches impede the mission at hand” (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education 100). The safety and security of the students are a key issue of concern. The rationale behind free-speech zones is the need to create noise-free learning environments. Notably, these zones limit speeches construed as harassment because students have the right and will to engage in healthy discussions. However, amidst these benefits lies threats such as limiting legal systems and a likelihood of controversial speeches emerging and creating havoc on college campuses. Most colleges have rules that restrict free speech. As The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (100) states, “school administrators have repealed their policies due to pressure from students and civil rights groups.” These policies restrict free-speeches. The emergence of controversial speeches that can fuel protests and other adverse outcomes deters the relevance of free-speech zones. There is a dire need to adopt suitable policies that guide free speech in the college environment.

Greg calls for the disbandment of free-speech zones on college campuses. One of the ideas behind the disbandment call is due to civility threats. Greg finds that free speeches threaten civility as they suppress the need to freely express one’s feelings, opinions, and perspectives when dealing with controversial debates. “Free speech discourages civic engagement” (Lukanioff 101). While students are expected to pay more attention to controversial debates when the world is experiencing conditions that call for such discussions, free speech makes them pay less attention. Thus, they stand to gain limited benefits from free speeches. Another reason behind the elimination of free-speech zones is exposure to insensitive speech and harassment. This affects the overall mission. Also, these institutions lack clear and specific codes that support free speech and thus weakens its significance. However, abolishing free-speech zones affects the right and freedom of speech. Institutions should consider steering a form of democracy that allows students to make autonomous and informed decisions (Lukianoff 101). Additionally, colleges should formulate simple and clear free speech codes to avoid insensitive statements and harassment.

Free-speech zones are beneficial on college campuses as they support the expression of views and opinions. The responsibility of creating successful and sustainable zones lies on the administrative level. It should formulate policies and plans that create a safe environment for everyone. As Scott (101) highlights, order and liberty are essential elements that create an equal ground. The speech policies developed and implement must correlate with civil liberties and the need for public order maintenance. The rationale behind a free speech zone is that it does not threaten free speech and can accommodate reasonable restrictions to enhance safety and security. As Scott (101) state, “free-speech zones are not new and does not present threats to free-speech rights.” Thus, college campuses must formulate these zones. However, disorders, violent demonstrations, lawlessness, violence, and vandalism are likely to occur with free-speech zone policies. Amidst these threats, it is important to allow for the development of free-speech zones to ensure that students can express their opinions. Also, institutional leaders should set suitable rules and regulations to handle possible violent cases and further disturbances.

Works Cited

Lukanioff, Greg. “Opinion | Feigning Free Speech On Campus (Published 2012)”. Nytimes.Com, 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/opinion/feigning-free-speech-on-campus.html.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Perspectives on Free-speech Zones on College Campuses.

Scott, Robert J. “Reasonable Limits are Good,” USAToday, May 26, 2003.