Speech is the foremost tool of teaching in the classroom. Without it, there would be little need for teachers, let alone universities.

But what happens if speech inside the classroom is no longer used as a tool to educate, but as a “weapon” used to persuade, intimidate or even harm?

In recent years this question has given rise to the heated debate about what college instructors should be allowed to say, talk about or teach in their classes. It is a debate about both academic freedom and free speech.

Freedom of speech has always had limitations, both inside the classroom and beyond. The University has policies to prevent discrimination, harassment, intimidation and threats of violence. Violations of these policies can result in institutional penalties as well as legal ramifications.

Professor Norman Eckel was suspended from his position in February after he allegedly made a remark about shooting students in his accounting class. Eckel’s suspension is in effect until Jan. 1.

Statements that are clearly of unethical nature, however, aren’t the only restrictions placed on teachers’ speech.

“Even though it may be legal according to the Bill of Rights, an instructor ethically cannot just say anything as long as it isn’#39;t of a discriminatory, harassing or threatening nature,” said Robert Boughton, Faculty Senate chair.

The University has set forth specific teaching responsibilities in its Academic Charter. One of which is the responsibility “to avoid the persistent intrusion of material irrelevant to the established course definition or apart from the faculty member’s area of scholarly competence.”

Earlier this year, Ohio Senate Bill 24 – better known as the “Academic Bill of Rights” – was introduced into state legislature as a result of students’ complaints that instructors were indoctrinating instead of teaching.

The bill was meant to place further restrictions on topics that could be introduced in class, in order to prevent instructors from pushing their ideologies on students.

In response to the bill, the Inter-University Council of Ohio – the educational association which represents Ohio’s 15 public universities – passed a “Resolution on Academic Rights and Responsibilities” in October. Unlike SB 24, the resolution stated that “individual universities and their governing boards are in the best position to create and implement policies that respect the rights of members of the university community.”

Many teachers, as well as students, argue that further speech limitations – imposed by either the universities themselves or by state law – will violate the notion of academic freedom and impair the learning environment in classrooms.

“If you start limiting what teachers can say in the classroom then you are limiting their ability to teach and to get students to think,” said Candace Archer, professor in the political science department.

Teaching is about pushing students beyond their normal realm of thinking, an endeavor that is hindered by limitations placed on free speech, Archer said.

Speech limitations are always going to be a complex issue, said Sheena Smith, a senior education major.

“As a future teacher, I try and put myself in my professors’ positions, and I can see why limitations could be a bad thing,” Smith said. “It might inhibit professors from talking about important controversial topics.”

But Smith said it is important that instructors don’t push their beliefs or political views on students in the process of discussing contentious topics.

“Teachers should not be limited with what they discuss in the classroom as long as they don’t pressure students to think the way they do,” Smith said.

Instructors are often criticized for indoctrination even if they are simply stating their personal views.

“By sharing my beliefs, I’m trying to get students to think about their own beliefs,” Archer said. “It’s the act of pushing students beyond thinking what they normally do.”

“A lot more goes on in the classroom than just conveying information,” Archer said.

It has long been established that higher education institutes don’t just serve the purpose of disseminating facts; they are also meant to teach students how to reason, analyze and debate.

Some instructors spur debate by voicing their own thoughts on contentious issues.

“Teachers should be allowed to state their political stances and feelings as long as they do not treat students unfairly for holding different views,” Smith said. “Some students are afraid to share their opinions because they are afraid the teacher will grade unfairly.”

Some people are worried that this fear inhibits students’ academic freedom. They argue that placing certain speech restrictions on instructors would allow students more freedom in expressing their own views without the fear of “retaliation.”

“That’s a very student-centered myth – that professors are out there gunning for them,” Archer said. “Students who are afraid to speak up are just doing a disservice to themselves.”

“Students must not remain passive in the classroom,” Boughton said. “If you believe that an instructor is not acting up to snuff, it is your duty to challenge him or her in a rational – not polemical – discourse. This means that you should have a logical basis for your arguments, just as the instructor should.