Should we limit free speech? Racism, hate speech, and Confederate flags are all hot topics you see in the news every day. While legal thanks to the First Amendment, the debate that commonly arises is when we ask: Can we censor these reckless actions? Specifically, do private universities have the legal power to restrict free speech? If so, should they actually limit free speech? Derek Bok, now a lawyer and educator, was once president of Harvard University and is the author of the article Protecting the Freedom of Expression 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. they should be allowed at Harvard University, as well as every other private university 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 faculty the opportunity to talk to possibly misguided and crazy students in the hopes that they will change their callous beliefs. Support this belief by stating that censoring these radical views not only brings more attention to students and their offensive actions, but can also lead to more demonstrations and publicity of these harmful beliefs. Ultimately, Bok believes that Harvard University's policy should allow its students full access to the rights afforded by the First Amendment. Bok believes this approach will discourage students who seek attention through their insensitive actions from ever performing such actions again. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In Bok's article, he primarily structures his argument around the classical model, which incorporates a logical structure that uses 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 free speech protection afforded by the First Amendment. He then establishes his position on insensitive opinions: "(the) satisfaction it gives to students who display these symbols is far outweighed by the distress it causes to many others" (70). This was a very logical move, showing his disapproval of the student's actions, but also calming the reader and putting aside any notion that Bok is trying to defend radical ideas in this article. He also states his first assumption, that he believes students who perform callous actions do so for their own satisfaction. This assumption is important because it states that the main reason students display these controversial symbols is to gain attention themselves. Which, in his opinion, 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 offensive or insensitive does not mean the community should censor the topic. Bok's first piece of evidence is logical: "Under the Supreme Court ruling... swastikas or Confederate flags clearly fall within the protection of free speech." Use this basis to make an ethical statement: “censorship is so dangerous.” Supporting this idea, Bok presents the idea that, because we are human beings, a value judgment about censorship of Confederate flags can.