DCsc

1. Surname 1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Governme Contacts for help:dorineadalyn@gmail.com
nt Letter.
Student association speakers and issues committee,
Michigan University,
220 Trowbridge Rd
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
23rd
June, 2021.
Dr. Philip Andrews,
President Michigan University,
220 Trowbridge Rd
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.

2. Surname 2
Dear Sir,
RE: A REQUEST TO FORBID THE APPEARANCE OF THE SELF PROCLAIMED HEAD
OF WHITE SUPREMACIST GROUP IN THE CAMPUS.
On behalf of the student association speakers and issues committee, I am writing to humbly
request you to forbid the appearance of the famous white supremacist to speak at the student
union. I am fully aware that the law has a provision that allows individuals to deliver
controversial speech but the nature of our visitor’s speech is not healthy for the students and the
community at large. Considering that our institution has worked really hard to overcome the ever
aching impacts of racism and inferiority complex with regard to gender through its policies and
practices of racial equality, all these efforts will go down the drain if we allow the head of White
People Militia to deliver his speech. This group is known to be responsible for hate crimes across
WESTERN U.S. which includes hateful graffiti, physical disruption of Martin Luther King day
remembrances.
The years that an individual spend in college are meant for expanding intellectual opportunities
and newfound social freedom. This not what will happen after that speech is delivered since this
group advocates for the removal of African, native, Hispanic and Asian-American people from
the former Confederate States. Fellow students will easily be brainwashed with this ideology and
hence they will not co-exist as one community that does not regard people of different color as
the ‘other’. In such an environment, students of color will find it hard to navigate through their
academic expectations and the stressful social environment that is dominated by whites
(Jochman et al 1). Additionally, vicarious exposure to racism is a great contributor to students
ruminating on their own or others’ experiences which intern will result to long term health
consequences.

3. Surname 3
Besides his racial ground, the speaker is planning to bring a huge crowd in the campus. I don’t
find it advisable to have a huge crowd in the campus who already have a preformed judgment
about people of color yet a number of students in the campus are of color. Alongside their racial
prejudice, the speaker’s presence is commonly associated with violence. In all his appearances
you will never miss incidences where violence broke. If this happens in the campus, the students
might be forced to engage in violence with the crowd that will accompany him and that will
obviously lead to a lot of destruction of school property. Because we do not want any of our
students to get hurt or even in the worst case die and school, school property be vandalized I
think the best option is to keep the speaker out of the premise.
Since the court holds that physically threatening and racially divisive demonstrations have an
intimidating effect on the minority group which goes beyond the expressing ideas that are
offensive. In such a circumstance the court views that, the state cannot be required to wait until
violence erupts before taking action. There is severe need to balance freedom of expression and
prevention of violence. From his previous appearances it is evident that his speech will not lack
incitement and hate speech key drivers towards violence. Freedom of expression cases should be
assessed on the merits under article 10 ECHR because this provision allows for a balancing of
the various interests involved (Buyse 1).
Unfortunately when we talk about provisions in the law, this group has declared themselves
immune to law. Therefore, even if we address them about what should and what should not
happen within the institution they will not listen since they do not regard themselves as being
bound by the law yet the law is very clear on the issue. For example, if we look at what the law
had for the rally that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, that was tagged ‘Unite the Right 2’
which ended with the death of a counter protestor and several others being sent to the hospital.

4. Surname 4
Even though all Americans have the right to express themselves publicly under the first
amendment, that does not mean that they are allowed to hurl racist insults to specific people just
like it happened during the rally. Thus the first amendment did not protect the people who
engaged in hurling threatening racial insults during the rally in Charlottesville. The Supreme
Court considered this act as fighting words which adds no value to the country’s democracy
(Campbell 1).
Please sir, as you make your decision, consider the role that this individual’s language will have
in sparking violence in the campus and whether it is protected by the first amendment. We are
greatly hoping that you will forbid his appearance.
Yours Sincerely,
G.L.
German Lopez.

5. Surname 5
Work Cited
Jochman C. Joseph. Cheadle E. Jacob. Goosby J. Bridget. Mental Health Outcomes of
Discrimination Among College Students on a Predominately White Campus: A Prospective
study. Sage Journals. (2019). P1
Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/h
Buyse, Antoine. “DANGEROUS EXPRESSIONS: THE ECHR, VIOLENCE AND FREE
SPEECH.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 63, no. 2, 2014, pp. 491–
503. JSTOR,
Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43301613

6. Surname 6
Campbell F. Alexia. The limits of free speech for white supremacists marching at Unite the Right
2, explained: The First Amendment doesn’t protect targeted racial slurs that could spark
violence. (2018) P1. VoxMedia.
Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/10/17670554/unite-the-right-dc-
free-speech-first-amendment