thesis about free college

Spring 2024

The Case Against Free College

Without an overhaul of how we understand student benefits, making college free would boost the wealth of college attendees without any egalitarian gains.

[contentblock id=subscribe-ad]

In the United States, as in much of the rest of the world, college students receive three kinds of public benefits: tuition subsidies, living grants, and public loans. Through various combinations of this benefit troika, almost all students are able to finance their college education. Some on the left are very unhappy with the precise mix of student benefits currently on offer. Student debt activists, among others, complain that tuition subsidies and living grants make up too little of the student benefit bundle, while public loans make up too much of it.

Recently, this complaint has begun to coalesce into a number of movements and proposals for “free college.” I put the phrase in quotes because it means different things to different people. For some, “free college” means subsidizing tuition to zero. For others, it means subsidizing tuition to zero and providing living grants high enough to completely cover room and board. For still others, it appears to mean putting in place some mix of means-tested tuition subsidies, living grants, and even subsidized work-study jobs that, combined with expected parental assistance, allow nearly all students to leave college with little to no debt.

One could write at great length about these different conceptions of “free” and the policy proposals that have formed around them. For instance, since people who do not attend college also have housing and food costs, is it really correct to say room and board is a cost of attending college? Why do none of these conceptions consider as a cost of college all of the potential wages students forego by choosing to study rather than work? Does parental assistance with college really help to make it free or is it more properly understood as a family wealth transfer that students then pay towards their higher education?

Of greater importance than all of those questions, however, is the more basic question about the fairness of free college as an idea. Those clamoring for free college make normative claims about the nature of a just and good society. As currently argued, however, these claims are largely uncompelling. Without a dramatic overhaul of how we understand student benefits, making college more or entirely free would most likely boost the wealth of college attendees without securing any important egalitarian gains.

The main problem with free college is that most students come from disproportionately well-off backgrounds and already enjoy disproportionately well-off futures, which makes them relatively uncompelling targets for public transfers. At age nineteen, only around 20 percent of children from the poorest 2 percent of families in the country attend college. For the richest 2 percent of families, the same number is around 90 percent. In between these two extremes, college attendance rates climb practically straight up the income ladder: the richer your parents are, the greater the likelihood that you are in college at age nineteen. The relatively few poor kids who do attend college heavily cluster in two-year community colleges and cheaper, less selective four-year colleges, while richer kids are likely to attend more expensive four-year institutions. At public colleges (the type we’d likely make free), students from the poorest fourth of the population currently pay no net tuition at either two-year or four-year institutions, while also receiving an average of $3,080 and $2,320 respectively to offset some of their annual living expenses. Richer students currently receive much fewer tuition and living grant benefits.

Given these class-based differences in attendance levels, institutional selection, and current student benefit levels, making college free for everyone would almost certainly mean giving far more money to students from richer families than from poorer ones. Of course, providing more generous student benefits might alter these class-based skews a bit by encouraging more poor and middle-class people to go to college or to attend more expensive institutions. But even reasonably accounting for those kinds of responses, the primary result of such increased student benefit generosity would be to fill the pockets of richer students and their families.

Student benefit campaigners tend not to focus on these sorts of distributive questions, preferring instead to gesture towards a supposed student debt crisis to prove that those who attended college really are a hurting class needing higher benefits. While there are certain extreme cases of students with very high debts, and certain college sectors such as for-profits that are truly immiserating specific groups of students, the reality remains that college graduates are generally on track for much better financial outcomes than non-attendees. Even in the wake of the Great Recession, which hit young people harder than anyone else, those with bachelor’s degrees had median personal incomes $17,500 higher than young high school graduates. Just one year of this income premium would be enough to wipe out the median debt of a public four-year-college graduate, which currently stands slightly above $10,000.

Although extending extra benefits to such a disproportionately well-off group is a deeply suspicious idea, the way American student benefit campaigners talk about it is somehow worse still. Due to the toxic American mix of aversion to welfare benefits, love of individual rights, and faith in meritocracy, the typical line you hear about free college is that it should be a right of students because they have worked hard and done everything right. The implicit suggestion of such rhetoric is that students are really owed free college as the reward for not being like those less virtuous high school graduates who refuse to do what it takes to better themselves through education.

Needless to say, such thinking is extremely damaging to a broader egalitarian project, even more so in some ways than its goal of setting aside a part of our national income for the inegalitarian aim of making college free. If we are actually going to push a free college agenda, it should not be under a restrictive students’ rights banner, but instead under a general pro-welfare banner. The goal of free college should not be to help students per se , but instead to bind them to a broader welfare benefit system. By presenting their tuition subsidies and living grants as indistinguishable from benefits for the disabled, the poor, the elderly, and so on, it may be possible to encourage wealthier students to support the welfare state and to undermine students’ future claims of entitlement to the high incomes that college graduates so often receive. After all, the college income premium would only be possible through the welfare benefits to which the rest of society—including those who never went to college—has contributed.

Without understanding and presenting student benefits as welfare handouts, a free college agenda has no real egalitarian purpose. Giving extra money to a class of disproportionately well-off people without securing any reciprocal benefit to poor and working-class people who so often do not attend college, all while valorizing the college student as a virtuous person individually deserving of such benefits, would be at worst destructive, and at best, totally pointless.

Matt Bruenig is a writer who researches poverty, inequality, and welfare systems.

This article is part of   Dissent’s special issue of “Arguments on the Left.” Click to read contending arguments from Tressie McMillan Cottom and Mike Konczal .

[contentblock id=subscribe-plain]

Sign up for the Dissent newsletter:

Socialist thought provides us with an imaginative and moral horizon.

For insights and analysis from the longest-running democratic socialist magazine in the United States, sign up for our newsletter:

Thesis Statements

What this handout is about.

This handout describes what a thesis statement is, how thesis statements work in your writing, and how you can craft or refine one for your draft.

Introduction

Writing in college often takes the form of persuasion—convincing others that you have an interesting, logical point of view on the subject you are studying. Persuasion is a skill you practice regularly in your daily life. You persuade your roommate to clean up, your parents to let you borrow the car, your friend to vote for your favorite candidate or policy. In college, course assignments often ask you to make a persuasive case in writing. You are asked to convince your reader of your point of view. This form of persuasion, often called academic argument, follows a predictable pattern in writing. After a brief introduction of your topic, you state your point of view on the topic directly and often in one sentence. This sentence is the thesis statement, and it serves as a summary of the argument you’ll make in the rest of your paper.

What is a thesis statement?

A thesis statement:

• tells the reader how you will interpret the significance of the subject matter under discussion.
• is a road map for the paper; in other words, it tells the reader what to expect from the rest of the paper.
• directly answers the question asked of you. A thesis is an interpretation of a question or subject, not the subject itself. The subject, or topic, of an essay might be World War II or Moby Dick; a thesis must then offer a way to understand the war or the novel.
• makes a claim that others might dispute.
• is usually a single sentence near the beginning of your paper (most often, at the end of the first paragraph) that presents your argument to the reader. The rest of the paper, the body of the essay, gathers and organizes evidence that will persuade the reader of the logic of your interpretation.

If your assignment asks you to take a position or develop a claim about a subject, you may need to convey that position or claim in a thesis statement near the beginning of your draft. The assignment may not explicitly state that you need a thesis statement because your instructor may assume you will include one. When in doubt, ask your instructor if the assignment requires a thesis statement. When an assignment asks you to analyze, to interpret, to compare and contrast, to demonstrate cause and effect, or to take a stand on an issue, it is likely that you are being asked to develop a thesis and to support it persuasively. (Check out our handout on understanding assignments for more information.)

How do I create a thesis?

A thesis is the result of a lengthy thinking process. Formulating a thesis is not the first thing you do after reading an essay assignment. Before you develop an argument on any topic, you have to collect and organize evidence, look for possible relationships between known facts (such as surprising contrasts or similarities), and think about the significance of these relationships. Once you do this thinking, you will probably have a “working thesis” that presents a basic or main idea and an argument that you think you can support with evidence. Both the argument and your thesis are likely to need adjustment along the way.

Writers use all kinds of techniques to stimulate their thinking and to help them clarify relationships or comprehend the broader significance of a topic and arrive at a thesis statement. For more ideas on how to get started, see our handout on brainstorming .

How do I know if my thesis is strong?

If there’s time, run it by your instructor or make an appointment at the Writing Center to get some feedback. Even if you do not have time to get advice elsewhere, you can do some thesis evaluation of your own. When reviewing your first draft and its working thesis, ask yourself the following :

• Do I answer the question? Re-reading the question prompt after constructing a working thesis can help you fix an argument that misses the focus of the question. If the prompt isn’t phrased as a question, try to rephrase it. For example, “Discuss the effect of X on Y” can be rephrased as “What is the effect of X on Y?”
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? If your thesis simply states facts that no one would, or even could, disagree with, it’s possible that you are simply providing a summary, rather than making an argument.
• Is my thesis statement specific enough? Thesis statements that are too vague often do not have a strong argument. If your thesis contains words like “good” or “successful,” see if you could be more specific: why is something “good”; what specifically makes something “successful”?
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? If a reader’s first response is likely to  be “So what?” then you need to clarify, to forge a relationship, or to connect to a larger issue.
• Does my essay support my thesis specifically and without wandering? If your thesis and the body of your essay do not seem to go together, one of them has to change. It’s okay to change your working thesis to reflect things you have figured out in the course of writing your paper. Remember, always reassess and revise your writing as necessary.
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? If a reader’s first response is “how?” or “why?” your thesis may be too open-ended and lack guidance for the reader. See what you can add to give the reader a better take on your position right from the beginning.

Suppose you are taking a course on contemporary communication, and the instructor hands out the following essay assignment: “Discuss the impact of social media on public awareness.” Looking back at your notes, you might start with this working thesis:

Social media impacts public awareness in both positive and negative ways.

You can use the questions above to help you revise this general statement into a stronger thesis.

• Do I answer the question? You can analyze this if you rephrase “discuss the impact” as “what is the impact?” This way, you can see that you’ve answered the question only very generally with the vague “positive and negative ways.”
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? Not likely. Only people who maintain that social media has a solely positive or solely negative impact could disagree.
• Is my thesis statement specific enough? No. What are the positive effects? What are the negative effects?
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? No. Why are they positive? How are they positive? What are their causes? Why are they negative? How are they negative? What are their causes?
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? No. Why should anyone care about the positive and/or negative impact of social media?

After thinking about your answers to these questions, you decide to focus on the one impact you feel strongly about and have strong evidence for:

Because not every voice on social media is reliable, people have become much more critical consumers of information, and thus, more informed voters.

This version is a much stronger thesis! It answers the question, takes a specific position that others can challenge, and it gives a sense of why it matters.

Let’s try another. Suppose your literature professor hands out the following assignment in a class on the American novel: Write an analysis of some aspect of Mark Twain’s novel Huckleberry Finn. “This will be easy,” you think. “I loved Huckleberry Finn!” You grab a pad of paper and write:

Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn is a great American novel.

You begin to analyze your thesis:

• Do I answer the question? No. The prompt asks you to analyze some aspect of the novel. Your working thesis is a statement of general appreciation for the entire novel.

Think about aspects of the novel that are important to its structure or meaning—for example, the role of storytelling, the contrasting scenes between the shore and the river, or the relationships between adults and children. Now you write:

In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain develops a contrast between life on the river and life on the shore.

• Do I answer the question? Yes!
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? Not really. This contrast is well-known and accepted.
• Is my thesis statement specific enough? It’s getting there–you have highlighted an important aspect of the novel for investigation. However, it’s still not clear what your analysis will reveal.
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? Not yet. Compare scenes from the book and see what you discover. Free write, make lists, jot down Huck’s actions and reactions and anything else that seems interesting.
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? What’s the point of this contrast? What does it signify?”

After examining the evidence and considering your own insights, you write:

Through its contrasting river and shore scenes, Twain’s Huckleberry Finn suggests that to find the true expression of American democratic ideals, one must leave “civilized” society and go back to nature.

This final thesis statement presents an interpretation of a literary work based on an analysis of its content. Of course, for the essay itself to be successful, you must now present evidence from the novel that will convince the reader of your interpretation.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Lunsford, Andrea A. 2015. The St. Martin’s Handbook , 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 2018. The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing , 8th ed. New York: Pearson.

Ruszkiewicz, John J., Christy Friend, Daniel Seward, and Maxine Hairston. 2010. The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers , 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Open Access Theses and Dissertations

Thursday, April 18, 8:20am (EDT): Searching is temporarily offline. We apologize for the inconvenience and are working to bring searching back up as quickly as possible.

Advanced research and scholarship. Theses and dissertations, free to find, free to use.

Advanced search options

Browse by author name (“Author name starts with…”).

Find ETDs with:

Written in any language English Portuguese French German Spanish Swedish Lithuanian Dutch Italian Chinese Finnish Greek Published in any country US or Canada Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile China Colombia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Ireland Italy Japan Latvia Lithuania Malaysia Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Peru Portugal Russia Singapore South Africa South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand UK US Earliest date Latest date

Sorted by Relevance Author University Date

Only ETDs with Creative Commons licenses

Results per page: 30 60 100

October 3, 2022. OATD is dealing with a number of misbehaved crawlers and robots, and is currently taking some steps to minimize their impact on the system. This may require you to click through some security screen. Our apologies for any inconvenience.

Recent Additions

See all of this week’s new additions.

About OATD.org

OATD.org aims to be the best possible resource for finding open access graduate theses and dissertations published around the world. Metadata (information about the theses) comes from over 1100 colleges, universities, and research institutions . OATD currently indexes 6,912,508 theses and dissertations.

About OATD (our FAQ) .

Visual OATD.org

We’re happy to present several data visualizations to give an overall sense of the OATD.org collection by county of publication, language, and field of study.

You may also want to consult these sites to search for other theses:

• Google Scholar
• NDLTD , the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. NDLTD provides information and a search engine for electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs), whether they are open access or not.
• Proquest Theses and Dissertations (PQDT), a database of dissertations and theses, whether they were published electronically or in print, and mostly available for purchase. Access to PQDT may be limited; consult your local library for access information.

Home — Essay Samples — Education — College Tuition — Why Should College Be Free: Overview of The Benefits

Why Should College Be Free: Overview of The Benefits

• Categories: College College Tuition

About this sample

Words: 1583 |

Updated: 23 January, 2024

Words: 1583 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, why college should be free, works cited.

• BBC. (2019, December 20). Greta Thunberg: Climate Crisis Activist Gets Comic Book Treatment. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50861907
• CNN. (2019, September 23). Greta Thunberg: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know.
• Greta Thunberg’s official website. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.gretathunberg.org/
• Svenska Dagbladet. (2018, August 20). Greta Thunberg: “Skolstrejken för klimatet kan pågå i åratal” [Greta Thunberg: “The school strike for climate can go on for years”]. Retrieved from https://www.svd.se/greta-thunberg-skolstrejken-for-klimatet-kan-paga-i-aratal
• The Guardian. (2019, March 11). Greta Thunberg: The Fifteen-Year-Old Climate Activist Who Is Leading a Global Movement.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1411 words

1 pages / 533 words

3 pages / 1460 words

1 pages / 446 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on College Tuition

Anyone who has ever attended college or thought about attending college has noticed that participating in any sort of higher education is costly. Many families are able to put their kids through school with the help of student [...]

The first problem is time management: the university is academically complex. For many, school courses require more effort than school efforts. Unlike most middle schools, colleges usually have two years in prison for one year. [...]

"Why did you choose University of Central Florida?" or "Why are you interested in UCF?" - those are questions that are asked of me almost as often as "What do you want to be when you grow up?" Among my explanations and [...]

There are several ways on how students can pay their college funds, those ways are discussed below: Students should apply as many scholarships and grants as possible. The money paid by the scholarships go [...]

It is thought in American society that a college degree is necessary to pursue a prestige high-paying career. More students are taking the path of higher education causing a growth in student and national debt. Rising debt in [...]

The debate on whether college education should be free is a heated one, with both sides coming up with convincing arguments in support of their opinion. There exist many varied perspectives with divergent views on the matter. [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

What’s Included: The Dissertation Template

If you’re preparing to write your dissertation, thesis or research project, our free dissertation template is the perfect starting point. In the template, we cover every section step by step, with clear, straightforward explanations and examples .

The template’s structure is based on the tried and trusted best-practice format for formal academic research projects such as dissertations and theses. The template structure reflects the overall research process, ensuring your dissertation or thesis will have a smooth, logical flow from chapter to chapter.

The dissertation template covers the following core sections:

• The title page/cover page
• Abstract (sometimes also called the executive summary)
• Table of contents
• List of figures /list of tables
• Chapter 1: Introduction  (also available: in-depth introduction template )
• Chapter 2: Literature review  (also available: in-depth LR template )
• Chapter 3: Methodology (also available: in-depth methodology template )
• Chapter 4: Research findings /results (also available: results template )
• Chapter 5: Discussion /analysis of findings (also available: discussion template )
• Chapter 6: Conclusion (also available: in-depth conclusion template )
• Reference list

Each section is explained in plain, straightforward language , followed by an overview of the key elements that you need to cover within each section. We’ve also included practical examples to help you understand exactly what’s required in each section.

The cleanly-formatted Google Doc can be downloaded as a fully editable MS Word Document (DOCX format), so you can use it as-is or convert it to LaTeX.

FAQs: Dissertation Template

What format is the template (doc, pdf, ppt, etc.).

The dissertation template is provided as a Google Doc. You can download it in MS Word format or make a copy to your Google Drive. You’re also welcome to convert it to whatever format works best for you, such as LaTeX or PDF.

What types of dissertations/theses can this template be used for?

The template follows the standard best-practice structure for formal academic research projects such as dissertations or theses, so it is suitable for the vast majority of degrees, particularly those within the sciences.

Some universities may have some additional requirements, but these are typically minor, with the core structure remaining the same. Therefore, it’s always a good idea to double-check your university’s requirements before you finalise your structure.

Will this work for a research paper?

A research paper follows a similar format, but there are a few differences. You can find our research paper template here .

Is this template for an undergrad, Masters or PhD-level thesis?

This template can be used for a dissertation, thesis or research project at any level of study. It may be slight overkill for an undergraduate-level study, but it certainly won’t be missing anything.

How long should my dissertation/thesis be?

This depends entirely on your university’s specific requirements, so it’s best to check with them. As a general ballpark, Masters-level projects are usually 15,000 – 20,000 words in length, while Doctoral-level projects are often in excess of 60,000 words.

What about the research proposal?

If you’re still working on your research proposal, we’ve got a template for that here .

We’ve also got loads of proposal-related guides and videos over on the Grad Coach blog .

How do I write a literature review?

We have a wealth of free resources on the Grad Coach Blog that unpack how to write a literature review from scratch. You can check out the literature review section of the blog here.

How do I create a research methodology?

We have a wealth of free resources on the Grad Coach Blog that unpack research methodology, both qualitative and quantitative. You can check out the methodology section of the blog here.

Can I share this dissertation template with my friends/colleagues?

Yes, you’re welcome to share this template. If you want to post about it on your blog or social media, all we ask is that you reference this page as your source.

Can Grad Coach help me with my dissertation/thesis?

Within the template, you’ll find plain-language explanations of each section, which should give you a fair amount of guidance. However, you’re also welcome to consider our dissertation and thesis coaching services .

• Knowledge Base
• Popular Essay Topics

Why College Should be Free Essay

• Author StudySaurus
• Category Popular Essay Topics

Disclaimer: This paper has been submitted by a student. This is not a sample of the work written by professional academic writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of StudySaurus.

Topic: Should a college or university education be tuition free essay

College tuition fees have been on the rise in the last couple of years. Now many jobs require a college degree which makes it hard for those without higher education. The higher somebody goes in their education the easier it is to get almost any job they want. College education has become a necessity in today’s society and rising tuition fees are putting a college education out of reach for some students. The first two years of college should be provided and funded by the U.S. government because it will encourage students to achieve their college education without looking at college as such a financial obstacle.

Today the cost of attending a public university or community college is so high that most students simply cannot afford it. As a result, the federal government continues to offer financial aid and Pell grants to lower-income families. Student loans are also available and are known as the most dominant source of financial aid. “During the 2012-2013 school year alone, about 10 million college students took out loans and in 2015, the total amount of student loan debt in America was estimated to be about $1.3 trillion.” This just goes to show that even though some students are getting financial aid help to go to school, there is always a fee to pay out of pocket.

Should College be free Essay

Today’s society more and more jobs are requiring specific technical requirements or a college degree. Free college would expand higher educational benefits such as jobs and higher pay as opposed to those with little to no college background. Recovery magazine believes “By 2020, 65 percent of all jobs in the economy will require post-secondary education and training beyond high school.” (Carnavale, Smith, Strohl. pg 3) free college tuition will give so many students an equal opportunity to achieve their goals no matter if it’s just an associates degree or a doctoral degree. Achieving a college degree can not only be a life long achievement but can better their future and open doors to better job opportunities.

Of course, not everyone agrees with free college. Some argue that calling something free doesn’t make it free. Public education is funded by taxpayers and free college means higher taxes. With college tuition being so-called “free” it will attract students who are unfit for the college environment and will eventually drop out which means taxes will go up for taxpayers whether they have kids attending college or not. Some agree that college should not be free since some students will be unmotivated, lazy or unconcerned about their education. Students who are going to college are going to get their profession and will eventually be able to pay off their student debts. General taxpayers believe if a student’s desire is to attend college, then they will do whatever it takes to receive financial aid assistance. With college not being free, this is no way means students can’t receive financial aid help such as scholarships, federal Pell grand or even student loans. Overall it is important to make students understand their responsibilities in life and its wrong to place the burden of paying for their free education on the general population.

Was this material helpful?

Related essays, about studysaurus, community. knowledge. success..

StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things. We hope to share these experiences with you.

Ideas ,  concepts ,  tutorials,   essay papers  – everything we would’ve liked to have known, seen or heard during our high-school & UNI years, we want to bring to YOU.

Privacy & Cookies Policy Terms and Conditions DMCA Request

Totally Free Essay Database

Most popular subjects.

• Film Studies (1731)
• Paintings (520)
• Music (462)
• Management (5579)
• Case Study (4327)
• Company Analysis (3055)
• Cultural Studies (614)
• Cultural Issues (217)
• Ethnicity Studies (177)
• Architecture (413)
• Fashion (201)
• Construction (132)

Diet & Nutrition

• Nutrition (351)
• Food Safety (151)
• World Cuisines & Food Culture (103)
• Economic Systems & Principles (921)
• Finance (659)
• Investment (552)
• Education Issues (757)
• Education Theories (743)
• Teacher Career (424)

Entertainment & Media

• Advertising (435)
• Documentaries (393)
• Media and Society (376)

Environment

• Environmental Studies (604)
• Ecology (586)
• Environmental Management (436)

Family, Life & Experiences

• Personal Experiences (357)
• Parenting (221)
• Marriage (170)

Health & Medicine

• Nursing (2831)
• Healthcare Research (2440)
• Public Health (1857)
• United States (1489)
• World History (1098)
• Criminology (1012)
• Criminal Law (885)
• Business & Corporate Law (710)

Linguistics

• Languages (197)
• Language Use (173)
• Language Acquisition (151)
• American Literature (2033)
• World Literature (1487)
• Poems (898)
• Philosophical Theories (492)
• Philosophical Concept (378)
• Philosophers (285)

Politics & Government

• Government (1497)
• International Relations (1134)
• Social & Political Theory (609)
• Psychological Issues (1101)
• Cognition and Perception (593)
• Behavior (573)
• Religion, Culture & Society (801)
• World Religions (384)
• Theology (354)
• Biology (797)
• Scientific Method (766)
• Chemistry (416)
• Sociological Issues (2078)
• Sociological Theories (1128)
• Gender Studies (878)
• Sports Culture (168)
• Sports Science (154)
• Sport Games (113)

Tech & Engineering

• Other Technology (600)
• Project Management (558)
• Technology Effect (522)
• Hospitality Industry (159)
• Trips and Tours (148)
• Tourism Destinations (121)

Transportation

• Air Transport (172)
• Transportation Industry (150)
• Land Transport (136)
• Terrorism (317)
• Modern Warfare (307)
• World War II (191)

Most Popular Essay Topics

Papers by essay type.

• Analytical Essay
• Application Essay
• Argumentative Essay
• Autobiography Essay
• Cause and Effect Essay
• Classification Essay
• Compare & Contrast Essay
• Creative Writing Essay
• Critical Essay
• Deductive Essay
• Definition Essay
• Descriptive Essay
• Evaluation Essay
• Exemplification Essay
• Explicatory Essay
• Exploratory Essay
• Expository Essay
• Inductive Essay
• Informative Essay
• Narrative Essay
• Opinion Essay
• Personal Essay
• Persuasive Essay
• Problem Solution Essay
• Proposal Essay
• Qualitative Research
• Quantitative Research
• Reflective Essay
• Response Essay
• Rhetorical Essay
• Satire Essay
• Self Evaluation Essay
• Synthesis Essay

Essays by Number of Pages

Samples by word count, view recent free essays, the fundamentals of buddhism and the belief in impermanence.

• Subjects: Religion , World Religions

Total Reward Package and EVP: Linking the Employee Value Proposition

• Subjects: Business , Employees Management

An Ethical Problem in ABC: Annotated Bibliography

• Subjects: Business , Business Ethics
• Words: 1426

CHE Behavioral Health Services: The Shared Values, Vision, and Mission Statements

• Subjects: Health & Medicine , Healthcare Institution

Systemic Racism in Education

• Subjects: Racism , Sociology

“The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair: Concepts in American Novels

• Subjects: Concepts in American Novels , Literature
• Words: 1947

Policies and Procedures in Healthcare Facilities

• Subjects: Administration and Regulation , Health & Medicine
• Words: 1929

Catholic Christianity Report: Catholic Understanding of God as Trinity

• Subjects: Religion , Religion Theories

Nursing Practice in Adult Daycare

• Subjects: Health & Medicine , Nursing

“Cyber Warfare: A Misrepresentation of the True Cyber Threat” by Troy E. Smith

• Subjects: Cyber Security , Tech & Engineering
• Words: 1098

“Why Money Doesn’t Buy Happiness” by Sharon Begley

• Subjects: Psychological Issues , Psychology

Anxiety Treatment Options: Annotated Bibliography

• Subjects: Health & Medicine , Psychiatry

The Maternal Well-Being and Child Health Correlation

• Subjects: Health & Medicine , Healthcare Research
• Words: 2370

The Maturing of F. Scott Fitzgerald by Margolies

Employee dismissal due to misconduct fairness.

• Subjects: Business & Corporate Law , Law

How Sociological Imagination Explains Obesity

• Subjects: Sociological Theories , Sociology

Workplace Ergonomics to Prevent Health Problems

• Subjects: Health & Medicine , Public Health

Therapeutic Methods Applied to LGBTQ+ Clients

• Subjects: Gender Identity , Sociology

Healthy Aging and Nursing Interventions

• Subjects: Geriatrics , Health & Medicine

20th Century Music and Effect of Emergent Technology

• Subjects: Art , Music

Frequently asked questions

• Share full article

The Battle Over College Speech Will Outlive the Encampments

For the first time since the Vietnam War, university demonstrations have led to a rethinking of who sets the terms for language in academia.

A pro-Palestinian protest on Columbia University’s campus this spring. Credit... Mark Peterson/Redux

Supported by

By Emily Bazelon and Charles Homans

Emily Bazelon is a staff writer for the magazine who also teaches at Yale Law School. Charles Homans covers politics for The Times. He visited the Columbia campus repeatedly during the demonstrations, counter-demonstrations and police actions in April.

• Published May 29, 2024 Updated May 31, 2024

Early on the afternoon of Nov. 10, Jameel Jaffer, the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, was on his way into a meeting in Low Library, the domed neoclassical building at the center of campus, when an administrator pulled him aside. The school, the administrator said, was about to announce the suspensions of the campus chapters of the organizations Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, an allied anti-Zionist organization — a move that alarmed Jaffer given the fraught politics of the moment.

Listen to this article, read by Gabra Zackman

The day after Hamas’s brazen Oct. 7 attack on military and civilian targets in Israel, the S.J.P. and J.V.P. chapters co-signed an open letter declaring “full solidarity with Palestinian resistance.” The letter described the attacks as “an unprecedented historic moment for the Palestinians of Gaza” and a “counteroffensive against their settler-colonial oppressor.” It would be tantamount to “asking for quiet submission to systemic violence” for anyone to call for peace now, after years of Israeli violence and military campaigns against Palestinians. The groups issued a list of demands to the university — divestment from companies doing business with the Israeli government, the end of Columbia’s affiliation with Tel Aviv University and a recognition of Palestinian “existence and humanity” — and announced a demonstration on Oct. 12 on the steps of Low Library. They signed off: “See you Thursday.”

The Oct. 12 demonstration appeared to be in violation of campus rules, which required student groups to give 10 days’ notice for gatherings in public spaces, but Columbia had not been enforcing such requirements amid the emotional responses to the Hamas attacks and Israel’s retaliatory bombing in the Gaza Strip. “We got some pushback from the university,” recalled Cameron Jones, an organizer of the J.V.P. chapter, “but not insane pushback.”

As the sit-ins, teach-ins and die-ins continued, however, that began to change. Pro-Israel groups held counterdemonstrations, and tensions built on Columbia’s small, enclosed central campus. “In the past, demonstrations were basically students protesting against the establishment, and that was, you know, unidirectional and fairly straightforward,” the president of Columbia, Minouche Shafik, said in late May, in her first interview since December. “In this crisis,” she went on, “students are opposed to other students, faculty opposed to other faculty. And those internal dynamics and tensions have made this much more difficult than past episodes.” Outside Columbia’s library, several Israeli students were physically attacked after they confronted another student tearing down posters of Israelis held hostage by Hamas. Students wearing hijabs and kaffiyehs reported being called “Jew killers” and terrorists.

By Oct. 25, when S.J.P. and J.V.P. staged a walkout of college classes, “our relationship with the administration was really crumbling,” Jones recalled. Two days later, Israel’s invasion of Gaza began. On the night of Nov. 8, with another demonstration planned for the next day on the steps outside Low, a faculty adviser told the organizers that they were out of compliance with school rules and asked them to postpone the event. They did not , and the university suspended them.

When Jaffer heard the news, “I said, ‘Suspending the groups seems like a very draconian penalty for that offense,’” he recalled. When the administration in a public statement also cited the groups’ “threatening rhetoric and intimidation,” Jaffer grew more concerned: What speech crossed that line? In an open letter, he asked Columbia for an explanation.

The university didn’t publicly provide one, and the organizations received mixed messages from the administration. In a meeting with the student groups at the end of November, one administrator said that while the groups had not violated speech rules, Israeli students could hear accusations that Israel was committing genocide or was an apartheid state as an incitement to violence. “I left that meeting extremely confused,” said Maryam Alwan, an organizer of the S.J.P. chapter.

Shafik said this month that the suspensions of S.J.P. and J.V.P. were “content neutral” — they were about breaking the rules regarding demonstrations, not political views. Regardless, the university’s decision lit a fuse. In the months that followed, as the invasion of Gaza continued and civilian casualties mounted, dozens of student groups rallied in solidarity with S.J.P. and J.V.P. On April 18, Shafik asked the New York City Police to clear a pro-Palestinian student encampment on the Columbia lawn. That move, which included dozens of arrests, in turn sparked a wave of demonstrations at universities across the country. Columbia protesters rebuilt their encampment and, on the night of April 29, some of them stormed the school’s Hamilton Hall, occupying the building and locking and barricading the doors. At Shafik’s request, a large deployment of police returned to campus the following night, raiding the building and arresting its occupiers .

When private universities set rules for what speech they allow, including when, where and how students can protest, they can impose more restrictions than the First Amendment allows in public spaces. But for decades, they have claimed free speech as a central value, and that promise has a particular history at Columbia. In 1968, the administration called in the police to evict student demonstrators from Hamilton Hall, which they had occupied in protest of the university’s involvement in military research and a new neighborhood-dividing gymnasium project in Morningside Park.

The occupation and its violent end, the images of bloodied students dragged away in handcuffs, was a seminal moment for the Vietnam-era left; the following year, several Columbia demonstrators helped found the Weather Underground, the radical organization that bombed government buildings in the 1970s. The clash also occasioned an on-campus reckoning with long-lasting institutional consequences. The university senate, which includes faculty and students, was given a hand in disciplinary matters to check administrative power — a system the administration bypassed in suspending the pro-Palestinian groups.

For more than half a century now, campus activism and universities’ responses to it have mostly occurred within the paradigm shaped by 1968. Activists have used fights over investments, curriculums and development projects as platforms for radical politics and for a kind of revolutionary experimentation in the form of building occupations and other direct actions. Administrations have more often than not responded tolerantly or at least cautiously, out of a mix of principle and pragmatism. The building occupiers and tent-camp residents may be breaking laws or at least campus policies, but they’re also the university’s consumers.

But the upheavals on campuses across the country this spring were different. The campus war over the real war in Gaza did something no issue since Vietnam had done. It seemed to have prompted an abrupt rethinking of free-speech principles that many in academia assumed to be foundational.

In reality, though, this shift was not so abrupt. It reflected broader changes in the institutional structures and power balances within American universities and disagreements over free speech that have gradually redrawn the battle lines inside and outside academia. That the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would prove the catalyst, too, was not surprising. Few conflicts had so directly centered on the power of language and who sets its terms.

In 2019, Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia’s president before Shafik, wrote an essay for The Atlantic called “Free Speech on Campus Is Doing Just Fine, Thank You.” The occasion was an executive order President Trump issued that March, proclaiming that colleges and universities that received federal funding were required to “promote free inquiry” — a mostly symbolic measure that reflected several years of alarm on the right over what Fox News and others had declared a “free-speech crisis” on American campuses.

Throughout Trump’s presidency, college activists tried to block various appearances by speakers whose views they found repellent. At Middlebury College, they derailed a talk by the conservative social scientist Charles Murray and at William & Mary shouted down a speaker from the state A.C.L.U. chapter. Schools like the University of California, Berkeley , and Grand Canyon University , a Christian institution in Arizona, canceled or disinvited right-wing media figures for fear of demonstrations.

If Columbia managed to steer through this period with a minimum of turbulence, it was in large part thanks to Bollinger, a First Amendment scholar who defended the right of people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Milo Yiannopoulos to speak on campus. “I am of the view that one such disinvitation is one too many,” he wrote in The Atlantic essay, while noting that, in fact, disinvitations had been far rarer than the pundits and politicians suggested. But Bollinger cast the debate over the limits of campus speech as itself a part of the tradition of campus speech, and he concluded that “universities are, today, more hospitable venues for open debate than the nation as a whole.”

Five years later, this picture lay in tatters. Bollinger’s own university — he left office last June — was once again synonymous with building occupations and police crackdowns, and Columbia was facing legal action from both Jewish and Muslim students alleging harassing speech, among other complaints. In an interview in late April, Bollinger, who has not otherwise spoken publicly about the Columbia clashes, said that his own optimism was dimming. “There was a fair consensus that private universities,” he said, like public ones, “should embrace free-speech principles and set an example for the country in how free speech applies to a public forum. And now I think that’s breaking down.”

Other schools were also stumbling. In December, testifying before a House committee hearing on antisemitism on college campuses , three elite-university presidents equivocated when Elise Stefanik, a Republican congresswoman from New York, asked them whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate the rules on their campuses. One of them, the University of Pennsylvania’s Liz Magill, was out of her job within days ; a second, Claudine Gay of Harvard, resigned amid accusations of plagiarism that surfaced amid post-testimony scrutiny .

Shafik, testifying before a similar panel in April, fared better in the hearing room but worse back on campus. Under repeated questioning, she said that she found pro-Palestinian chants like “From the river to the sea” and “Long live intifada” antisemitic but added that “some people don’t.” Columbia also turned over documents to the committee about faculty members accused of antisemitic speech whom Shafik named in her testimony — disclosures the administration says that it was obligated to make but that infuriated professors, hundreds of whom signed open letters declaring it a breach of academic freedom. “She threw some of us under the bus,” said Katherine Franke, a Columbia Law School professor, who was among those criticized in the hearing. “But to me, that’s less important than her inability to make a defense of the university.”

To free-speech advocates, it was ominous that these presidents weren’t arguing for the university as a forum for fostering free speech, however controversial. “That commitment is really at the center of universities’ missions,” Jaffer said. “It is disappointing that so many university leaders failed to make that case.”

In the post-Oct. 7 demonstrations, however, universities confronted a dilemma far more complex than any Bollinger faced during his tenure. The invasion of Gaza has drawn students with a range of views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the protests, but S.J.P. and other groups at the vanguard have been clear on their own lines : They reject the idea of a two-state solution and consider the existence of a Zionist state in Israel to be illegitimate and immoral. This is a change from the early 1990s when Edward Said, the Jerusalem-born literary theorist and pro-Palestinian activist who made Columbia a leading bastion of Palestinian scholarship, championed a two-state outcome (though he rejected the idea in the last years of his life). The movement’s politics have hardened, and so have the facts on the ground. Hopes for a two-state solution have receded amid the increasingly extreme politics of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, including the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and attacks on Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah .

Historically, when “Zionist” becomes a pejorative, persecution of Jews has followed, and many American Jews see the rise in reported incidents of antisemitism as evidence of this once again. Some protesters crossed the line from rejecting Israel to using antisemitic imagery on posters and making threats. For example, Khymani James , a student leader of the protests at Columbia, said “Zionists don’t deserve to live” in a video of a school disciplinary hearing that he posted on social media. (James later apologized.) Chants like “We don’t want no Zionists here,” which continued at Columbia and elsewhere, made many Jewish students, including critics of Israel’s occupation, feel there was no longer a space for supporting a Jewish homeland in any sense.

But pro-Palestinian activists now often view the rejection of Zionism as an irreducible part of the cause — and are aware of how accusations of antisemitism have been wielded in the past to the detriment of that cause. When Columbia deans called for acknowledging the “genuine hurt” of both sides of the conflict in December, noting some of the language of the protests, Rashid Khalidi, a historian of Palestine at Columbia, accused them of having decided that “the oppressed should take permission from the oppressor as to the means to relieve their oppression.”

The clash over politics and language has created a rare point of real political vulnerability for universities. Several face the threat of House Republican investigations of their federal funding, which at Columbia amounts to $1.2 billion in annual grants and contracts, accounting for 20 percent of its budget. And Republicans, who have long criticized universities as fortresses of liberalism and leftism, now have allies among the many congressional Democrats who remain supportive of Israel, as well as many of the universities’ own donors, administrators and trustees. (Columbia’s board includes only one academic and no Muslims or Arabs other than Shafik.) In May, a bipartisan majority in the House passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would require schools to potentially risk their federal funding if they don’t restrict speech that, for example, denies “the Jewish people their right to self-determination” — a suppression of views that would run headlong into the First Amendment.

Back on campus, the conflict about antisemitism versus anti-Zionism has landed in the middle of a decades-long, unresolved argument over speech itself. Today’s students have grown up with the idea that speech can be restricted if it causes harm — but also believe that restricting their speech can be its own kind of harm. “I can’t think of another case,” says David Pozen, a Columbia law professor, “where a group not only refuses to stop using language it’s told is harassing and intimidating and demeaning but also flips it around to say, ‘Your very demand is a tool of oppression.’”

Debates over free speech on college campuses have invariably been debates about power. This became clear in 1964, when students at the University of California, Berkeley, handed out leaflets organizing demonstrations against the Republican National Convention, held in San Francisco that year. The dean of students barred them from using a campus-owned plaza. Months of protests and hundreds of arrests followed, until the university finally capitulated.

The Berkeley movement proved a useful foil for conservative politicians fighting the early skirmishes of the culture wars — Ronald Reagan successfully ran against it in his 1966 campaign for governor. But the Supreme Court upheld campus speech protections in 1967 and onward. And when a more enduring critique of campus speech emerged years later, it came not from the right, but from the left.

In an influential 1989 law-review article, Mari Matsuda, a law professor at the University of Hawaii and an early critical-race theorist, argued that the significance of speech and its acceptability on a university campus turned on who was speaking and who was being spoken to. Racist speech, in particular, could be more than offensive. When it reflected historic imbalances of power — when a white student hurled a racial slur at a Black student, for instance — it reinforced and perpetuated those imbalances in ways that shut down discussion, debilitating students’ academic lives. That meant that schools should treat it not as a matter of expression but as a real-world harm and sanction it. “Racist speech is particularly harmful because it is a mechanism of subordination,” she wrote.

By the early 1990s, more than 350 colleges and universities had adopted hate-speech codes imposing sanctions on students who demeaned someone’s race, sex or religion. But the codes collided with the First Amendment. Every court that considered a university speech code between 1989 and 1995 reached the same conclusion: The rules were vague, overbroad or discriminated against speakers because of their points of view and were thus unconstitutional.

Many First Amendment scholars agreed. They recognized that hate speech causes real harm but thought that banning it caused its own problems. Geoffrey Stone, a law professor and frequent collaborator of Bollinger’s, led a committee at the University of Chicago that issued a landmark 2015 report on free speech. It proposed “the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn” while allowing for limits on the time, place and manner of protests and on genuine threats and harassment.

The Chicago principles, as they are called, have since been adopted by more than 100 other schools. But this view of free speech never achieved a consensus. Within many humanities departments, Matsuda’s theories have retained currency. Ideas about identity and power have suffused progressive politics more broadly in recent decades. And in the Trump era, incursions of white nationalists and right-wing extremists into the political mainstream caused many liberals to rethink tolerating hate speech. Such speech no longer seemed confined to the far edge of American politics, and the death of a counterdemonstrator at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 reinforced the argument that hate speech was inherently violent and should be stopped at all costs.

But as progressive students extended this justification to even conventional conservatives and some civil liberties advocates, a more generalized intolerance took hold. In a 2022 survey of college students, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a civil liberties organization, found that liberal students were far more likely to say that preventing speech through protest was acceptable. Fifty-three percent of students who identified as “very liberal” said it was always or sometimes acceptable to shout down a speaker to block their appearance on campus. Only 13 percent of “very conservative” students did.

Three and a half decades ago, when Matsuda first laid out her case for sanctioning hate speech, based on the identity of the speaker, one of the most challenging tests of her framework was Zionism. Were Zionists persecutors, as pro-Palestinian activists contended? Or, given the history of Jewish persecution and the Holocaust, were they victims? Matsuda’s answer, in effect, was: It depends. She rejected the charge that Zionism was, by definition, racism. Zionists would receive a “victim’s privilege,” she said, if they spoke in “reaction to historical persecution” but not if they allied themselves with a dominant group.

Her response captured the duality of modern Jewish identity — vulnerable on a global scale, as only 0.2 percent of the world population and the subject of centuries of prejudice but wielding significant power in some contexts, most obviously the Israeli state. It also showed the difficulty of putting Matsuda’s analytical framework into practice. Doing so depended on a shared understanding of where power lay and who possessed it.

The lack of such a shared understanding is on display in dueling legal complaints Columbia now faces over the campus clashes , from Jewish and Israeli students and their supporters in one case and Palestinian, Muslim and Arab students and their allies in another. Each document incidents of face-to-face harassment, and each claim to be on the wrong side of power or social clout. The Palestinian, Muslim and Arab students say in their legal filing that they were “treated differently by high-ranking administrators,” citing the S.J.P. suspension. Jewish and Israeli students, by contrast, report being excluded from student organizations (an L.G.B.T.Q. group, a dance club, a group representing public-school students at suspension hearings) that either condemned Israel or said Zionists were unwelcome, forcing them to forfeit a core part of their identity to stay in the group.

Both complaints claim Columbia is violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which requires universities to respond when discriminatory harassment is “so severe or pervasive” that it limits or prevents students from participating in their education. The federal Department of Education has in recent years interpreted the law to apply to religious minorities like Jews and Muslims with “shared ancestry,” and to say that speech is a form of conduct that can violate the law.

The tension with free-speech principles is evident. In mid-December, the dean of U.C. Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, and the chancellor of U.C. Irvine, Howard Gillman, expressed concern about briefings for universities in which the Department of Education suggested that slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” likely created a hostile environment for Jewish students. “We know that some Muslim, Arab and Palestinian students similarly feel threatened by protesters who chant, ‘We stand with Israel,’” Chemerinksy and Gillman wrote in an essay in The Sacramento Bee. “Do they also require investigations and mitigation efforts?”

The day before Shafik called the police to Columbia for a second time, she issued a public statement suggesting that Title VI was forcing her hand. Calling the encampment a “noisy distraction,” she said it “has created an unwelcoming environment for many of our Jewish students and faculty.”

David Schizer, a former dean of Columbia’s law school and a chairman of the antisemitism task force the university convened in the wake of Oct. 7, said in an email that “after the occupation of Hamilton Hall, the police were preventing trespassing and vandalism, protecting the ability of all students to do their work, sleep and prepare for finals, and were also preventing discriminatory harassment against Jewish and Israeli students.” But Jaffer, the Knight Institute director, took issue with invoking Title VI as a rationale for the police action.

“Of course we want universities to protect students from discrimination,” he said. “But whatever federal anti-discrimination law means, it doesn’t mean universities are obligated to call in hundreds of riot-clad police to suppress mostly peaceful protests.”

In 2021, Shafik wrote a book called “What We Owe Each Other: A New Social Contract for a Better Society.” Before Oct. 7, she said, she hoped that her presidency might be dedicated to a similar theme, of strengthening the frayed social contract between universities and the country and within their own on-campus communities. That was still the challenge ahead, she believed. “I think we’re all thinking very hard,” she said, “about, you know, what we’ve learned.”

While the school’s board remains behind Shafik, on May 16 members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which among the school’s professors had been the most vocal in their criticism of her, passed a resolution of no confidence in the president by a margin of 65 percent to 29 percent. In an email to her colleagues, Virginia Page Fortna, a political-science professor, pointedly noted the title of Shafik’s book. “If we are to heal,” she wrote, “then Shafik owes Columbia: an apology, a strong and credible commitment to completely change course in how decisions are made, and an independent investigation of what has gone wrong.”

At the same time, few schools could credibly claim to have gotten things right in April. Institutions across the country, from large state schools to small liberal-arts colleges, struggled as the protests escalated, crossing into the terrain of encampments and building occupations, which aren’t protected by the First Amendment. Some schools that permitted encampments for a time also wound up in crisis. At the University of California, Los Angeles, on April 30, pro-Israel counterprotesters violently attacked a pro-Palestinian encampment while the campus police force mostly stood by. Even at the University of Chicago, the administration’s decision to tolerate an encampment ended when negotiations with the demonstrators broke down and the president called in police in riot gear . The several schools that did persuade students to end their encampments mostly did so by promising to consider divestment in Israel at a later date, punting on rather than resolving the underlying issue.

In the logic of protest politics, police crackdowns and the attention they generate are their own kind of victory. The campus clashes forced the war in Gaza into the center of American public life in a way that seven months of headlines about Israeli bombing campaigns, aid-shipment blockades and thousands of Palestinian civilian deaths did not. They drew attention to American dissent over the war and the United States government’s role in supporting it. Khalidi, the Columbia historian, speaks of the campus clashes as a turning point for younger Americans. “The protests have highlighted the fact that majorities of Americans oppose Israel’s war on Gaza and the Biden administration’s support of it, a fact that elites, politicians and the mainstream media systematically ignore,” he wrote in an email.

Universities now face the challenge of rebuilding their communities even as the debate over speech limits that divided them, to say nothing of the war in Gaza itself, remains unsettled — and the incentives of some interested parties, like congressional Republicans and pro-Palestinian organizers, seem to run in the opposite direction. The most realistic aspiration, perhaps, is that many students will tire of division and police deployments and make a path toward recovering a sense of empathy for one another — taking a step back and seeing their own political positions, however irreconcilable, as others might see them.

Matsuda, who did as much as anyone to shape the interpretation of language through the prism of power, had been thinking, too. “I don’t want anyone to feel uncomfortable on campus,” she said. “But stopping a protest movement, I don’t think it’s the way to make Zionist students feel comfortable.” At the same time, “it’s also really important for universities to help students move beyond slogans and see what might be hurtful or impactful about them,” she said.

At the height of the spring conflict, there were signs this was possible. At some schools, pro-Palestinian protesters modulated their own speech in deference to the requests of other students, even avoiding the common chant, “From the river to the sea,” which others have defended as peaceful. The protesters who made these choices didn’t do so because of a law or rule. They were sensitive to the nudge of peer relationships and social norms.

Bringing students together to hash out community standards about language is “the only way I can think of for there to be a set of norms about what speech goes too far that students on all sides would accept as legitimate,” David Pozen, the Columbia law professor, said. He felt the tumult of this spring, which at Columbia resulted in early student departures and scrambled graduation plans, aggravated and exhausted many students who did not themselves participate in the demonstrations and counterdemonstrations. “Students are feeling anguished and alienated, and maybe that’s an opening,” Pozen said.

Clémence Boulouque, a religion professor who serves on the university’s antisemitism task force, hoped Columbia could recover a sense of itself as a “place where people can coexist” and where mediation and discussion might forestall endless grievance and grief. If the divisions opened up by the protests were litigated in an endless back-and-forth of Title VI complaints, fought in the zero-sum realm of the law, then the school would fail at one of the oldest concepts in education: the moral development of its students. “Denying the pain of others, it’s not a great way of conflict resolution,” she said. “It’s also self-inflicted moral injury.”

On one level, this focus on de-escalation avoided the deep unresolved disagreements over where the political ended and the personal began. On another, it was its own kind of blunt realism. “We have to heal together and live together,” Boulouque said. “It’s just like Israel-Palestine. Nobody’s going anywhere.”

Read by Gabra Zackman

Narration produced by Anna Diamond

Engineered by Quinton Kamara

An earlier version of this article misstated the date that Minouche Shafik, the president of Columbia University, asked the New York City Police Department to clear a pro-Palestinian student encampment on the university’s lawn. It was April 18, not April 17. The article also misstated the position of the literary theorist and activist Edward Said on a two-state solution. He supported the proposal in the early 1990s but changed his public stance to support a one-state solution later in that decade.

How we handle corrections

Emily Bazelon is a staff writer at The New York Times Magazine. More about Emily Bazelon

Charles Homans is a reporter for The Times and The Times Magazine, covering national politics. More about Charles Homans

The Campus Protests Over the Gaza War

News and Analysis

​Harvard said that it will no longer take positions on matters outside of the university , accepting the recommendations of a faculty committee that urged the school to reduce its messages on issues of the day.

​Weeks after counterprotesters attacked a pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles, the university police have made the first arrest related to the attack .

​​A union for academic workers in the University of California system announced that an ongoing strike challenging the system’s handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations would extend to two more campuses , U.C.L.A. and U.C. Davis.

The Battle Over College Speech:  ​University demonstrations over the war in Gaza have reignited the debate over campus speech, and have led to a rethinking of who sets the terms for language in academia .

Making Sense of the Protests:  In the weeks leading up to graduation, our reporter spoke with more than a dozen students at Columbia University and Barnard College about how the campus protests had shaped them .

A Complex Summer:  Many university leaders and officials may be confronting federal investigations, disputes over student discipline  — and the prospect that the protests start all over again in the fall.

A New Litmus Test:  Some Jewish students say their views on Zionism — which are sometimes assumed — have affected their social life on campus .

Advertisement

Two years of free college? For some students in Colorado, the answer will soon be, 'Yes'

Colorado has expanded a program that will reimburse students with household incomes of $90,000 or less for out-of-pocket expenses for tuition and fees for their first two years of college at Colorado’s community colleges and public four-year colleges and universities.

The reimbursement will be made in the form of a Colorado income tax credit and will be available to all students, according to an informational page on the Colorado Department of Higher Education’s website . It is a refundable credit, so those who owe no state taxes are still eligible for the full reimbursement. Students must file their own tax returns and apply for federal or state financial aid to qualify.

The Colorado General Assembly passed HB24-1340 on May 29, and Gov. Jared Polis signed it the following day.

Students beginning certificate- or degree-seeking classes at Colorado community colleges, public four-year colleges and universities, and area technical college and local district colleges in the fall of 2024 and beyond will be eligible to request reimbursement for up to 65 credits of tuition and fees, not counting any concurrent enrollment, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, military credit or credit for prior learning. Credit for the fall 2024 semester can be claimed when students file their 2025 Colorado income taxes.

More: CSU employees 'very disappointed' in raises set for 2024-25 amid maximum tuition rate hikes

Only out-of-pocket expenses will be reimbursed, so any tuition and fees paid for by grants, scholarships or other forms of financial aid will be deducted.

Students must be enrolled in at least six credits per semester and maintain a grade-point average of 2.5 or better to qualify. Students eligible to request the credit will be notified by their schools, according to the CDHE.

“This will strengthen Colorado’s workforce, provide new pathways for students to gain in-demand skills and save Coloradans thousands of dollars — helping ensure that higher education is affordable to everyone," Polis said in a news release.

Primary sponsors of the bill were state Reps. Shannon Bird and Rick Taggart and state Sens. Barbara Kirkmeyer and Rachel Zeninger.

Reporter Kelly Lyell covers education, breaking news, some sports and other topics of interest for the Coloradoan. Contact him at  [email protected] , x.com/KellyLyell and   facebook.com/KellyLyell.news . 

First lady Jill Biden to community college grads: Erie doesn't do 'can't'

First lady Jill Biden encouraged more than 80 graduates of the Erie County Community College to ignore people who tell them they "can't" and pursue their dreams anyway, while also advocating for one of President Joe Biden's key educational initiatives — two years of free community college — during a commencement address Saturday in the bellwether county.

Biden, 72, addressed approximately 600 people as the keynote speaker for the college's second graduating class, fulfilling a commitment she made nearly four years ago to monitor the development of the new college.

2020: Jill Biden talks community college education with virtual Erie audience

Biden, a community college professor, recalled being "crushed" by a high school guidance counselor who told her she shouldn't go to college because it would be a waste of her time.

She spent 15 years not only getting her undergraduate degree, but also earning two master's degrees and a doctorate while raising three children, working full-time and attending school at night.

"And at 55, I walked across my last graduation stage," she said. "I really wanted to call that damn guidance counselor to tell him I just got my doctorate."

Biden said local officials who set out to establish the college, despite years of hurdles, summoned the same resolve she and members of the college's second graduating class had shown. "When people told you that this city is too small or it will be too hard to start a new school, you fought for one anyway, because Erie doesn’t do 'can’t,'" Biden said. "And four years ago, with the pandemic raging, before classes had started or students had enrolled, I joined leaders here — some of whom are with us today — to talk about the promise ahead.

 "I told you that community colleges change lives," Biden continued. "And graduates, you have made that promise real, one paper, one project, one credit — one job offer — at a time. A few years ago, this community took a leap. And, graduates, you rose to the challenge. You stepped onto this campus for the first time – and look at what you’ve accomplished."

Biden, who has more than 30 years of teaching experience, has been a professor at Northern Virginia Community College since 2009 and has continued to teach English and writing during her husband's presidency.

"I teach at a community college for the same reason students go to community colleges," she said. "They’re flexible and meet people where they are. And, as my husband, President Biden, says, they provide the 'best career training in America.'”

The Pennsylvania Board of Education created the Erie County Community College in June 2020 after years of failed attempts by local officials, who believed the school was critical to reviving a depressed manufacturing base. It was the first community college to be established under the state system in more than 25 years.

Jill Biden spoke with Erie leaders that fall in a virtual roundtable, outlining her husband's key educational initiatives, including a plan to provide two years of tuition-free community college education to all students. Biden, however, has not met that goal as he's faced opposition from Republicans, including a GOP-controlled House.

In March, the president again proposed free community college tuition as part of his $7.3 trillion fiscal 2025 budget.

Jill Biden echoed her husband's policy goal during Saturday's commencement speech: "Community colleges should be free," she said. "This community knows that. From shipyards to steel mills to healthcare centers, there are jobs here that need workers with the training to fill them."

Campaigns take jabs

While proud family members hooted and hollered as Biden helped award 55 associate degrees and 29 certificates, their raucousness was about the only thing resembling a political rally. With the exception of her plug for free community college, the first lady's speech was void of politics.

Following the event, however, the Pennsylvania for Biden campaign spokesman Jack Doyle issued a statement to the USA TODAY Network.

“Since day one, President Biden and first lady Dr. Biden have fought to make a quality education accessible to all Pennsylvanians, including by strengthening community colleges, ensuring teachers are paid what they’re worth, and lowering costs for families by relieving student debt,” Doyle said .

Doyle said former President Donald Trump would make "massive cuts" to public education and pass a tax cut for wealthy Americans that would require teachers to pay higher taxes than billionaires.

In response, a Republican National Committee spokesperson said Biden has "abysmal" poll numbers with 18-to-34-year-olds in Pennsylvania.

"It’s no wonder why the Biden campaign is gaslighting voters in Biden’s home state," RNC spokeswoman Rachel Lee said in a statement. "Between soaring prices, a war on American energy, and crippling crime, Pennsylvania voters see through dishonest Joe Biden’s desperate lies and will resoundingly support President Trump this November."

Auditor general also plugs community college education

Jill Biden wasn't the only one from the political arena to tout a community college education Saturday.

Pennsylvania Auditor General Timothy DeFoor, a Republican, also addressed graduates, telling them about the adversity he had to overcome on his way to becoming the first person of color to win election to a statewide executive office.

He wouldn't be where he's at today, he said, without the advice of a community college academic advisor.

DeFoor, who was elected in 2020 and is running for a second term this fall, said his parents demanded that he attend college after graduation. But unlike his siblings, who never earned less than a B growing up, DeFoor didn't have the grades to be accepted at a four-year institution. And he continued to struggle academically during his first year at Harrisburg Area Community College.

His academic adviser, a retired police officer, gave him a "tongue lashing" that brought DeFoor to tears, he said.

"As quickly as he broke me down, he built me up," the 62-year-old DeFoor said. "He said to me, 'I believe you can succeed here. I believe you can succeed anywhere, but you first have to believe in yourself and put in the work.'"

'Minds are made up': Pennsylvania's independent, GOP voters weigh in on Trump verdict

Third visit to Erie County

Saturday was Jill Biden's second trip to Erie County since becoming first lady and her third appearance since the start of the 2020 presidential campaign. On March 3, 2021, she spoke alongside Education Secretary Miguel Cardona at Fort LeBoeuf Middle School in Waterford. She also campaigned in the city of Erie at East Middle School on Nov. 2, 2020 , on the eve of the election.

Erie County is among a handful of counties in battleground states that several national political pundits say could decide the election.

She touted her and her husband's Pennsylvania roots Saturday. Jill Biden is from the Philadelphia suburbs of Willow Grove. Joe Biden was born in Scranton.

"We even have a family member — our cat Willow — from a farm not far from here," the first lady said, referring to a farm in Lawrence County. "So, it means so much to come to my home state and be a part of a moment like this one."

After twice supporting President Barack Obama, voters in the northwestern Pennsylvania county backed Trump by a margin of fewer than 2,000 votes in 2016, only to flip and back Biden by fewer than 1,500 votes four years later.

Trump spoke in Erie this past July . President Biden was last here in October 2020.

Matthew Rink can be reached at  [email protected]  or on X at  @ETNRink .

Stanford vs. Texas Women’s College World Series game: How to watch for free

• Updated: Jun. 03, 2024, 8:25 p.m. |
• Published: Jun. 03, 2024, 6:56 p.m.
• Ariana Tourangeau | [email protected]

The Women’s College World Series are in the Semifinals and the Texas Longhorns will face the Stanford Cardinals on Monday, June 3 to close out the day’s games.

The game is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. EST and will be broadcast on ESPN. Fans l ooking to watch can do so through FuboTV or DirecTV Stream, both of which offer a free trial. SlingTV doesn’t offer a free trial but does have other promotional offers available.

• WATCH THE WOMEN’S COLLEGE WORLD SERIES FOR FREE HERE

The Longhorns have looked exactly like the No. 1 seed up until this point. They have given up zero runs through two games in Oklahoma City. They started with a 4-0 victory over Stanford, the No. 8 seed, led by pitching phenom NiJaree Canady. They then turned around and dominated No. 4 Florida 10-0 in five innings. They allowed just one hit per game in those two victories. Texas will look to secure a victory over Stanford to lock in their spot in the WCWS championship series.

Stanford rebounded nicely from its opening loss to the Longhorns, downing Oklahoma State 8-0 in six innings on Friday and UCLA 3-1 on Sunday to get another matchup with the Longhorns.

Who : Texas Longhorns vs. Stanford Cardinals

When : Monday, June 3 at 7 p.m. EST

Where : OGE Field at Devon Park in Oklahoma City

Stream : FuboTV (free trial) ; DirecTV Stream (free trial); Sling

Tickets : StubHub ; SeatGeek ; * VividSeats

• *New customers who purchase tickets through VividSeats can get $20 off a $200+ ticket order by using the promo code MassLive20 at checkout.*

Gear: Shop around at Fanatics for jerseys, hats, polos, sneakers, shirts and more

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

site categories

Stars call for extra funding so uk bullying & harassment reporting body can launch on time, breaking news.

‘The Sex Lives Of College Girls’ Adds Michael Hsu Rosen For Season 3

By Denise Petski

Denise Petski

Senior Managing Editor

More Stories By Denise

• Mandisa’s Cause Of Death Revealed
• Mark Duplass Revisits ‘Creep’ Franchise With ‘The Creep Tapes’ Series Adaptation
• Darren Criss Joins Voice Cast For DreamWorks Animation’s ‘Gabby’s Dollhouse’ Series

EXCLUSIVE: Michael Hsu Rosen is enrolling at Essex College. Rosen has been cast in a major recurring role for the upcoming third season of Mindy Kaling  and  Justin Noble ‘s  The Sex Lives of College Girls .

Related Stories

Max Hikes Prices For Ad-Free Plans Effective Immediately

Warner Bros Discovery Buys European Streaming Rights To Olivier Marchal-Starring Drama 'The Crimson Rivers'

Rosen will play Brian, a student at Essex College.

Returning series regulars for Season 3 are Pauline Chalamet, lyah Chanelle Scott, Amrit Kaur, Christopher Meyer, Ilia Paulino and Renika Williams. As we previously reported,  Reneé Rapp has exited the series as a regular  for the upcoming season. She’ll appear in a handful of episodes, we understand, and will depart after those episodes.

The series is executive produced by Kaling, Noble, who serves as showrunner, and Howard Klein. Kaling International and 3 Arts Entertainment produce in association with Warner Bros. Television. 

Rosen was recently seen as a series regular on Glamorous and Pretty Smart, both for Netflix. He also was a series regular on Netflix’s Tiny Pretty Things and guest-starred on The Good Doctor , among other credits. He’s repped by CESD and TMT Entertainment Group.

Must Read Stories

‘the traitors’ unveils season 3 cast inc. ‘big brother’ & ‘real housewives’ stars, euro studios on “bringing reality back” to market after streamer reset, town hall delayed, skydance deal nears; streaming jvs, mohammed al-turki steps down as ceo of red sea film foundation.

Subscribe to Deadline Breaking News Alerts and keep your inbox happy.

Read More About:

No comments.

Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2024 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Women’s College World Series Oklahoma vs. Florida: How to watch softball semifinal game

Oklahoma’s return trip to the championship series of softball’s Women’s College World Series was delayed — if not denied — after the Florida Gators blasted the Sooners, 9-3, Monday to force an if-necessary game in the semifinals.

No. 2 seed Oklahoma, the three-time defending champions, and No. 4 seed Florida will now play a winner-take-all game on Tuesday for the right to face No. 1 overall seed Texas in the championship series. The Longhorns beat Stanford, 1-0, Monday night to eliminate the Cardinal.

Oklahoma is seeking to become the first school to win four consecutive NCAA Division I softball championships. The Sooners are also seeking their eighth title all time, which would tie Arizona for second most in NCAA history, behind UCLA’s 12.

Florida, which won back-to-back championships in 2014 and 2015, is seeking to return to the championship series for the first time since losing to Oklahoma in 2017.

Here is all the information you need to know for the Women’s College World Series semifinal game on Tuesday:

What time is the WCWS game between Oklahoma and Florida?

The Oklahoma Sooners and the Florida Gators will face off Tuesday at 2 p.m. ET in a winner-take-all semifinal game.

What TV channel is showing the WCWS game between Oklahoma and Florida?

ESPN is televising Tuesday's semifinal game between the Oklahoma Sooners and Florida Gators.

Will there be a live stream of the WCWS game between Oklahoma and Florida?

ESPN+ and the ESPN app will have a live stream of the winner-take-all semifinal game between the Oklahoma Sooners and Florida Gators.

Where is the WCWS game between Oklahoma and Florida being played?

All games at the Women's College World Series are at Devon Park in Oklahoma City.

When does the WCWS championshp series begin?

The championship series of the Women's College World Series begins Wednesday night at 8 p.m. ET on ESPN.

Who is playing in the WCWS championship series?

The winner of the semifinal game between the Oklahoma Sooners and Florida Gators will face the Texas Longhorns in the best-of-three championship series.