Several weeks ago, my school had a speaker come in to discuss First Amendment rights and freedom of speech on college campuses. Today, I am here to respond.

Freedom of speech is one of the United States' most fundamental and inalienable rights. It builds the fabric of our nation, allows for a free press, true democracy and a higher standard of living. But what happens when my speech infringes on your speech? Or even worse, your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

Now, when ones speech takes away lives, it’s a crime. This is understood. Speech in some ways can inhibit liberty via coercion, but true infringement on liberty as a result of free speech (defined as vocal, literary, or demonstrative expression) is near impossible. This is why, for the sake of this article, I will be focusing on what happens when ones right to free speech infringed on another right to the pursuit of happiness. This has become a hot topic on many campuses today, as the rise of trigger warnings takes over collegiate institutions. Students insist that professors alert students when and if they will be discussing controversial topics in class, and if the professors dare to brooch the subject, an alternative assignment must be provided. This is done in the name of safety, mental health, and of course, happiness. At its core, it’s logical. It’s unrealistic to expect a rape victim to be safe or happy in class where rape is casually discussed. A student who grew up in a physically abusive household may have difficulty remaining composed in a class where abuse is used as a motif, despite the true implications this disgusting trauma has had on their life.

But then again, what is learning without truth? Abuse exists in life, and by extension in literature and history. How can the next generation prevent history from repeating if they’re sheltered from history itself? And furthermore, by placing these students in a candy coated world, are we inhibiting them from ever achieving true happiness in the first place?

Maybe. If college and universities deny students the ability to experience the worlds realities, they render themselves useless as institutions of higher learning. Yet, If they force a student to confront a potentially detrimental topic in the name of education, they alienate entire populations of mentally disabled or ill students. College ceases to be an institution for all, and instead becomes one for merely unaffected, nuero-typical students.

So what should universities do? My suggestion follows: stop trying to help everyone and instead be prepared to help anyone. Don’t eliminate entire works from your curriculum, but understand if a student can’t handle a topic, and be accommodating if someone reached out to you.

So that’s my opinion. It might be really wrong, but I’m allowed to speak it. I’m allowed to create a dialogue on this highly controversial topic, and throw my view into the mix because of freedom of speech. Thanks, James Madison.