fire free speech essay contest

Table of Contents

Fire’s 2020-2021 free speech essay contest: more winning essays.

• Josh Haverlock

A word cloud illustration created with words from this year's essay contest entries.

FIRE’s High School Outreach team recently published the winners of the 2020–2021 Free Speech Essay Contest — along with the winning submission . 

This year’s prompt asked students to draw on current events, historical examples, personal experiences, or other FIRE resources to pen “a persuasive letter or essay [to] convince your peers that free speech is a better idea than censorship.” 

Below, we’re printing the essays from our second and third place winners.

And if you’re a high school student or teacher, find age-level resources on free expression, civil liberties lesson plans, and more — at thefire.org/high-school.

Second Place Entry  

Sami Al-Asady — Ironwood High School 

Glendale, Ariz. 

Free Speech: The Foundation of a Vibrant Democracy 

In 1995, after my grandfather and uncle had been brutally killed for voicing criticism of dictator Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian regime, my father fled Iraq and immigrated to the United States, where free speech is enshrined in the Constitution. My mother, also a refugee, narrowly escaped genocide in the Bosnian War, where ethnic minorities were slaughtered and devoid of their religious freedoms. As a first-generation American, I hold dear the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  

Intellectuals have long revered the principle of free speech. For instance, British philosopher John Stuart Mill, a century and a half ago, declared, “All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” Mill argued that minority opinions must be shielded from the mob that would readily suppress them. Silencing lone opinions not only encroaches on individual rights, but it also threatens the bedrock values of truth, autonomy, and self-governance that are so critical to a modern, pluralistic democracy. The idea is profoundly optimistic: good ideas win. 

To protect the cherished First Amendment, however, difficult decisions have to be made. In the landmark 2011 Snyder v. Phelps case, in an 8-to-1 vote, the court ruled that government could not stop members of the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting military funerals across the country because of what they perceived to be the government’s tolerance of homosexuality—signs like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” were ubiquitous. Although the decision was difficult, the majority decided to protect free speech, however painful it may be, because the mere possibility of government censorship impinges on the very promise America was founded on—that of a constitutionally free nation. Government censorship nurtures anti-democratic values that transgress the idea of liberty. 

Sadly, free speech is under attack on college campuses. Rather than foster safe environments for political discourse, the key to an active and informed citizenry, university administrators have elected to censor speech. For instance, universities are actively encroaching on the principle of free speech by relegating students to minuscule “free speech zones.” At Valdosta State University, free speech activities of 11,000 students were limited to just 1% of the 168-acre campus. This atrocious policy was a testament to the false promise that college is a protected place for discourse. However, it is not just school administrators that are attacking free speech, but it is also students themselves. At Grand Canyon University (GCU), students blocked conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro from speaking. This action clearly contravenes the school’s mission of preparing students to become global citizens, critical thinkers, and proactive communicators. By blocking dissenting views, college students effectively prevent themselves from attaining a profound liberal arts education. Blocking speakers that hold different political views not only prevents students from engaging in personally transformative discourse, but also from understanding why political opposites believe their ideas with conviction. Until the principle of free speech is vigorously fostered on college campuses, students will not acquire the critical thinking skills needed to succeed in a complex, globalized world. 

Furthermore, absurdly vague speech codes at universities are potent threats to a vibrant democracy. For instance, the University of Michigan enacted a code that forbade “[any] behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or creed.” Although the commitment to protect students from harm is applaudable, speech codes such as this impinge on the free communication that is so vital to our democracy. By cherry-picking which speech is protected and which isn’t, authoritarianism and government censorship can run rampant, preventing significant dialogue from occurring. Moreover, the vagueness of the policy’s language is a testament to the inadequacy of speech codes as a disciplinary measure. Thankfully, federal and state courts have decreed the measure unconstitutional. In the opinion of Doe v. University of Michigan , the court observed, “[t]he Supreme Court has consistently held that statutes punishing speech or conduct solely on the grounds that they are unseemly or offensive are unconstitutionally overbroad.” While hate speech, sexual harassment, racism, and heterosexism are important issues that ought to be addressed, restricting speech is not the solution. 

Americans must remember the words of Mark Twain, who, a century ago, cautioned, “[whenever] you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” As social media corporations promulgate Orwellian-like groupthink, his words ring truer and truer with each passing day. Protecting the First Amendment allows revolutionary ideas to burgeon. Additionally, it allows citizens to challenge conventional wisdom and the status quo; novel ideas often give birth to remarkable outcomes. For instance, just take a look at the Great American Experiment. Appalled by the tyranny of the British monarchy, the Founding Fathers envisioned a nation in which unalienable rights—including free speech—are to be protected by the Constitution. They debated vigorously and held starkly different political philosophies; however, they refused to shy away from ideas that discomforted them.  

As I think back to my parents’ journey to America, I realize the First Amendment is under attack precisely because of its power. It has the power to start a revolution, a new country, a new social order, a democracy. My generation must protect the cherished principle of free speech on college campuses and teach our peers the virtues of open dialogue and political discourse, for the consequences of government censorship are too great. 

Third Place Entry  

Salome Augusto – Stone Bridge High School

Ashburn, Va. 

Dangerous Ideas

In the winter of 1954, an economist and scholar, a Dr. Paul M. Sweezy, found himself before the New Hampshire Attorney General. Sweezy was at the center of an investigation. 

“What was the subject of your lecture?” 

During his interrogation, Sweezy refused to answer any questions pertaining to a lecture he’d held at the University of New Hampshire the year prior. It had discussed quite an unsavory subject at the time, socialism. 

“Did you advocate Marxism at that time?” 

McCarthyism, the political backing behind this investigation, was a campaign rooted in the desire to preserve American freedoms against a potentially tyrannical ideology. Yet it suppressed the freedom of speech, labelling those with alternative opinions as “subversive”. In fact, Sweezy was being investigated under New Hampshire’s Subversive Activities Act. Doomed if he answered and doomed if he didn’t, Sweezy was found in contempt of court for his decision to remain silent. 

Freedom of speech has remained a complex topic throughout American history. Dr. Sweezy wasn’t the first and won’t be the last controversial speaker to show up on an American campus. His ideas weren’t the first and won’t be the last unpopular ideas to be debated in a public setting. This is a constant. What has seen fluctuations is support for greater restrictions on speech. Restrictions on the First Amendment often come about for what could certainly be considered noble reasons, but under closer inspection, we can see that none are truly justified. As the upcoming generation, the next influence on public policy and social climate, it’s vital that we see the importance in free and open discussions always. 

Over the past few decades, there’s been a slow increase in limitations on free speech, particularly on our college campuses. Speech codes, speaker bans, and small “free speech zones” are becoming more widely accepted. Although colleges house relatively small portions of the population, it’s important to pay attention to the individual climates we create within them. Colleges reflect the social and political future of our country.

The reasons for their constraints on the First Amendment are often good in theory. Speech codes are instituted to curtail hate speech or the spread of dangerous ideas. Speaker bans and free speech zones are set up to promote civility. However, in practice, they set a precarious precedent. Both hate speech and dangerous ideas are subjective. Outright threats, open calls for violence against others, and clear discriminatory harassment are identifiable and legally restrictable, but, beyond that, the territory is a gray area. At one point in our Nation’s history, racial mixing was considered a dangerous idea. Advocacy for my very existence as a multiracial person would’ve been seen as a threat to racial purity. Depending on the context, really any idea could be considered “dangerous” or “hateful.” If we set the precedent of subjectively restricting some speech, any speech can be restricted. As for civility, suppressing speech would most likely lead to the opposite. When we feel that we’ve been wronged, when we feel we’ve been silenced, do we not become more passionate, even reckless? Instead, we should strive to promote free and open discussion. 

Free speech is more than just a better alternative to censorship. It’s productive, facilitating change. This generation is already striving to leave our mark on America, as every generation has before us, but we cannot do so without free speech. Free speech allowed suffragists like Jane Addams to advocate for the contentious idea of women’s enfranchisement in the early 20th century. Free speech also allowed anti-suffragists like Josephine Dodge to criticize the movement. That’s how permanent change is driven, through unrestricted debate. If one side had been censored, the focus would’ve likely shifted to that fact, rather than the issue at hand and the merits of each argument. Progress would’ve been stifled. 

It’s also important to note the impact of the First Amendment’s equal application on any side of an issue. The restriction of an argument based on the level of its controversiality is directly counterproductive. The idea of female voters was once labeled radical and highly criticized. Therefore, it can be difficult to predict which current, “radical” ideas will become mainstream in a few decades. Each should, accordingly, be equally unrestrained. It’s crucial that we all are allowed to put forth ideas and disagree vocally. This is how we advance together. 

As for Sweezy, he appealed his case to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision of Sweezy v. New Hampshire affirmed the importance of academic freedom of speech. Despite this (and other) legal precedents, cases remarkably similar continue to arise. Just last month, nearly 60 years later, an administrative investigation was opened into Professor Mark Miller at New York University for a propaganda lecture he gave on mask-wearing campaigns. 

Students who disagreed with his presentation, rather than opening a discussion to criticize it, instead went to the school administration in order to have him de-platformed. After reviewing the professor’s argument, I also disagree with his lecture. Yet, it’s critical that his right to free speech be upheld, and that the precedent of silence not be set. 

Policy, whether it be federal, local, or university policy, is influenced by those it affects—us. As the next generation, we have the power to effect change within these climates. Let us learn from our Nation’s history and strive to create a future of open discussion.

Jenna Smith – Kent Place School

Scotch Plains, N.J.

The Realm of True Progress 

The year was 1787. It was a sunny afternoon in Philadelphia. After five months of grueling debates, the framers had finally reached the end of the Constitutional Convention, where they labored tirelessly to craft the great document that we know today. As they emerged from that sweltering room, they were greeted by throngs of engaged Americans waiting to hear what the fate of their country would be. As Benjamin Franklin, one of the eldest participants in the debates, was leaving the building, a woman eagerly approached him and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin looked the woman in the eyes and responded, without a moment’s hesitation, “A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.” 

If we are to “keep” our republic, as Franklin foretold, then we must actively engage in varied discourse with diverse perspectives. Free speech cannot be separated from the central goal of a republic. A republic is defined by the consent of the governed. However, consent given with limited perspectives, discourse, and information is not true consent. Yet, that is what we would be resigned to without freedom of expression. Free thought enables us to fully debate ideas in order to determine which are the best ones to represent our society. In a country that prides itself on its liberties, freedom of speech should not be treated as a luxury that can be ignored by America’s institutions of higher education or confined to limited “free speech zones.” 

In addition to the immorality of censorship, it is necessary to evaluate its practical criticisms. The central goal of censorship is to eliminate “unwanted” ideas from society. However, an idea cannot simply be erased like the markings on a chalkboard. Ideas ruminate and expand in the minds of all those who come in contact with them, regardless of legislation designed to suppress those thoughts. In fact, the suppression of ideas often leads to an increased public fascination with them. This precisely occurred in the case of anti-vice activist, Anthony Comstock, who staunchly opposed the production and distribution of content relating to sex, abortion, and similar subjects percieved to be obscene. In the midst of his 19th century crusade against said materials, he was successful in prompting the passage of the Comstock Act, which banned all literature deemed “obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy” under the Grant administration. His efforts went so far as to permit the search of private mail for obscene content without a warrant. Despite these extreme measures and violations of civil liberties, Comstock was ultimately unsuccessful in eradicating the contested materials from society (19 U.S. Code § 1461), and much of the material he opposed is consumed without restriction today. This instance leads us to the simple truth that censorship does not work, and society is likely better off because of it. 

Some contest unabridged free speech by claiming that the act of barring offensive rhetoric will enable our society to progress past hateful ideologies, such as racism and sexism. However, this logic prioritizes the hatred vocalized over the hatred harbored. Hearts and minds are not changed by the suppression of ideas. Rather, they change through productive conversation and active engagement with varied perspectives. 

When discussing the issue of censorship, one must evaluate the concept in relation to those who do not align with the modern mainstream perspective on issues relating racism, sexism, and other marginalizations. Censorship unequivocally favors the viewpoints of those in power, which is not always—what is widely considered—the morally correct viewpoint. It is vital to note that the pendulum of popular thought will never cease to swing, as what is viewed as moral in 2020 may differ from what is perceived as moral in 2040. The preamble of the Constitution proclaims that the nation should consistently work towards “a more perfect union.” These aforementioned shifts in American consciousness allow the people to develop a deeper understanding of what the core values of the country should be and how they will be embodied in pursuit of this more perfect union. It is unproductive to hinder the movement of ideas by repressing the full scope of public discourse. 

If we venture to transport ourselves back to that summer afternoon in Philadelphia, where Ben Franklin forecasted our nation’s great challenge, we must ask ourselves: are we working to keep the republic? The answer: only if we continue to engage in public debate, continually pushing ourselves towards a more perfect union. A republic cannot function without open conversation. While it may be tempting to lean into the warm embrace of those who agree with our own ideologies, as modern censorship promises, true progress lives in discomfort. Similarly, we cannot claim to champion free speech only when that speech aligns with our beliefs. The true measure of our principles is not found when fighting for those we agree with, but rather for those that we passionately disagree with. We must remember that democracy is not automatic. The free exchange of ideas is the lifeblood of a democratic society.

Margaret Ludwig – Mat-Su Career and Technical High School

Wasilla, Alaska

Fellow Americans, 

When did we become so afraid of one another? When did ostracizing, demeaning, and threatening those who hold different opinions become popular? When did news sources become so biased, reporting in a way that supports a singular narrative and ignores all others? It is difficult to remain hopeful as an American during these times of censorship. I am weary of watching others being degraded by total strangers. I am weary of the fear that explaining my perspective reasonably could destroy my educational and career prospects. I hope that you, too, are weary, and that you will stand with me in changing our culture in a way that will benefit us all. 

Benjamin Franklin asserted that freedom of speech was a “principal pillar of free government,” and that without it, tyranny would be erected on the ruins of free society. The First Amendment of the American Bill of Rights prevent the federal government from abridging the freedom of speech of its citizens, in addition to protecting freedoms of religion, of the press, and of peaceful protest. However, Americans manage to censor each other without the federal government doing so. In American culture, the “majority” consists of those whose opinions mirror those of mainstream media. While “tyranny of the majority” looks very different than it did in the 1830s, when Alexis de Tocqueville described it in Democracy in America , it still adheres to the same general principles. Upon visiting Jacksonian America, Tocqueville’s greatest concern was that public opinion of the majority would overshadow and oppress the minority. While Tocqueville never saw modern America, I can imagine that he would be horrified by the future of censorship it is headed towards. Fear of free speech extends to minorities not only in the spheres of social media and politics, but to those who are less powerful in any sort of conflict. Though such dynamics have always existed in America, as supported by Franklin and Tocqueville, it is more important than ever that opportunities for free speech are acted upon. 

Currently, I feel threatened by the prospect of speaking freely. My school district is attempting to change the application process for my high school, without significant public input and without the support of the vast majority of the student body. The new application has not been widely advertised, and many people are unaware of it. I am one of the principal organizers of a student coalition that aims to raise awareness about and prevent the new application. 

Our student group has had little assistance from school staff; we surmise that they are afraid to speak out against the new system. Writing op-eds to a local newspaper in the hopes of spreading the word is our last resort. Given small-town politics, such an idea feels very risky. We even considered using pseudonyms to avoid repercussions from the district. As I consider the predicament of my organization and of our nation, I fear that such interactions will become the norm in my life, and in the lives of others. My experience is only a small example; fear over speech with much greater consequences stifles the voices of millions of Americans every day. 

One of the most significant threats to freedom of speech is cancel culture. If someone speaks in favor of an opinion that is not favored by the majority, especially online, they risk being censored and losing their livelihoods. Proponents of cancel culture claim that the cancelled deserve the repercussions of their speech; surely those with such offensive ideas deserve suffering. The cancelled are supposedly cruel and ignorant as a result of their ideas, while the cancelers are supposedly “woke” and enlightened. Cancel culture flourishes upon the idea that its participants administer justice. This ideology has resulted in book burnings and the success of oppressive governments across the world. When a society figuratively criminalizes free thought, such thought may later be literally criminalized. Already, people of certain American political affiliations are being blacklisted so that they can later be “reprogrammed” and “held accountable.” Fellow Americans, do we want to live in a world in which any idea that is not accepted by the media invites punishment? Do we want to repeat the lessons taught to us by authoritarian regimes throughout history, or by “Fahrenheit 451” and “1984”? 

It is our duty to speak freely. If we react to censorship with silence, we become complicit in our silencing. If those of us who do not agree with mainstream media, the government, or our friends and family decide that speaking out is not worth the risk, we lose incredible opportunities for discussion. Pretending to agree with ideals that conflict with one’s values makes it impossible for these values to survive, and for differing worldviews to reach understanding and compromise. Therefore, I will continue to speak against the new application. Contemplation of the censorship Americans face has revealed to me that my situation is practice. Given the direction our culture is headed, I may someday stand for something that places me in the way of serious harm. If we do not exercise free speech in the seemingly minor conflicts we face, censorship will prevail easily in the future. 

Fellow Americans, please stand with me. Your small acts of bravery are indescribably valuable. If we continue to fight for what we believe in, we can preserve the spirit of individuality and liberty that defines America.

• Free Speech
• Faculty Rights
• Student Rights

Recent Articles

FIRE’s award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

New FIRE poll: Americans equally skeptical Biden or Trump will protect First Amendment rights

Here’s what student journalists need to know about covering campus protests

On resistance, revolution, and dissent — campus protests in 44 states and the District of Columbia — First Amendment News 422

Survey shows: Most Americans are concerned about the future of free speech

Related articles, alan morrison files cert. petition in lawyer suspension case — fan 335, i want to go to law school, but i'm not excited for 3 years of illiberalism and controversy, nebraska lawmakers: protect student rights by passing these two bills , reimagining student media advisory boards as a boon to college press freedom, tennessee tech professors sue their university for punishing them over game of thrones parody flyers , global classrooms, authoritarianism without borders: the new era of campus speech suppression.

• Share this selection on Twitter
• Share this selection via email

FIRE FREE SPEECH ESSAY CONTEST

FREE SPEECH ESSAY CONTEST

Sponsoring Institution: FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education)

Type: Essay contest

Eligibility: The Free Speech Essay contest is open to high school juniors and seniors in the U.S., including home schooled students and U.S. citizens studying overseas.

Application Deadline: All entries for this essay contest are due by 11:59 on December 31st. Winners are announced in February. 

Highlight: Free speech is a guaranteed right in the U.S. constitution. That right holds the most power in academic institutions, where students pose their ideas against their fellow peers and learn to develop their opinions. If you’re an American high school junior or senior passionate about free speech, look no further than the Free Speech Essay Contest! To enter this essay contest, gather your thoughts into a 700-900 word essay that responds to the provided prompt; this years prompt is to convince your friends of why free speech is better than censorship. So don’t hold back!  As far as format and style, MLA can work, but it’s entirely up to you! As long as your essay addresses the prompt, you’re in good shape. So, if you thought democracy was rewarding enough, think again! This essay contest awards seven cash prizes, ranging from $500-$10,000! Go ahead and use your freedom of speech to write a spectacular essay ! It’s your right!

It is our anual free funding event for high schoolers from all over the world

You seem to be using an unsupported browser

To get the best user experience please use a supported browser. Here are a few we recommend:

FIRE's Free Speech Essay Contest

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Description

Amount details, eligibility requirements, how to apply, scholarship articles and advice from the peterson's blog.

What You Need To Know About the Upcoming FAFSA Changes

Your Guide to Paying for College

Meet Carly, Peterson’s Graduate Scholarship Winner!

Meet Alexia, one of Peterson’s Scholarship Winners!

7 Culinary Arts Scholarships to Savor

10 Scholarships for Students Studying Environmental Science

11 Scholarships Offered for Asian American and Pacific Islander Students

8 Scholarships for Psychology Majors

Teens’ award-winning essays explore free speech vs. hate speech

May 6, 2024 | Community , Education | 1

Harold Bailey Jr., TEAM’s longtime chairman, presided over the awards ceremony Monday night at the Westport Library, which co-sponsors the contest.

Congratulations, Olivia, Sophia, and Teya! Your reflections on hate and accountability add so much value to our community’s conversations about addressing hate conduct and identity-based harassment in our schools’ new code of conduct. This week parents launched https://kindwps.com to ask for a comprehensive code of conduct that effectively addresses hate in our schools. Let’s hope we get it right as a community so we can begin to cultivate a culture of kindness and mutual-respect that keeps children safe.

Leave a reply Cancel reply

All commenters must register with a user name, a valid email address and a first name.

I agree with the Comment Policy

Most Popular

Recent comments.

• Jay Walshon on RTM bucks public opinion, OKs money for Jesup Green redesign
• Toni Simonetti on RTM bucks public opinion, OKs money for Jesup Green redesign
• Mary Ciara Webster on RTM bucks public opinion, OKs money for Jesup Green redesign
• Morley Boyd on RTM bucks public opinion, OKs money for Jesup Green redesign
• Kristin Schneeman on RTM bucks public opinion, OKs money for Jesup Green redesign

Today’s Events

Wednesday may 8, town information, local blogs.

• New account

Forgot your password?

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive mail with link to set new password.

Back to login

Privacy Overview

Thank you for your interest in donating to Westport Journal’s Editorial Development Fund.

All of the money donated here is added to Westport Journal’s editorial budget.

Your contribution directly leads to more Westport Journal articles and to Westport Journal publishing more insight into what is happening here in town. Please note that Westport Journal is a for-profit venture; your donation is NOT tax deductible.

Please give what you can. Please make your donation recurring if you can.

You and all of our readers will benefit from your generosity.

I would like to donate

Some attractive features that you will get with our write essay service

Grab these brilliant features with the best essay writing service of PenMyPaper. With our service, not the quality but the quantity of the draft will be thoroughly under check, and you will be able to get hold of good grades effortlessly. So, hurry up and connect with the essay writer for me now to write.

Finished Papers

How to Write an Essay For Me

Support team is ready to answer any questions at any time of day and night

We value every paper writer working for us, therefore we ask our clients to put funds on their balance as proof of having payment capability. Would be a pity for our writers not to get fair pay. We also want to reassure our clients of receiving a quality paper, thus the funds are released from your balance only when you're 100% satisfied.

Customer Reviews

We never disclose your personal information to any third parties

Know Us Better

• Knowledge Base
• Referencing Styles
• Know Our Consultance
• Revision and Refund Policy
• Terms Of Use

Bennie Hawra

These kinds of ‘my essay writing' require a strong stance to be taken upon and establish arguments that would be in favor of the position taken. Also, these arguments must be backed up and our writers know exactly how such writing can be efficiently pulled off.

Johan Wideroos

Advertisement

Supported by

Israel Orders Partial Evacuation of Rafah, Fueling Fears of New Offensive

Hamas says it has agreed to a cease-fire plan that Israel said did not meet its demands, the latest in a long series of negotiating stumbles.

• Share full article

By Vivek Shankar ,  Liam Stack ,  Adam Rasgon and Michael Levenson

Israeli warplanes pounded targets in the southern Gaza city of Rafah on Monday as the military told about 110,000 people sheltering there to evacuate. Many people began to leave, fearing that Israel was moving ahead with its long-planned invasion of Rafah, despite stiff international pressure.

The Israeli military began dropping leaflets in eastern Rafah telling people to move to what it called a humanitarian zone to the north, and said it would also notify people by text messages, phone calls and broadcasts in Arabic, and on Monday night, the Israeli military carried out another round of what it called “targeted strikes” in Rafah against Hamas.

Residents told

not to return north

Mediterranean

new evacuation

Kerem Shalom

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement late on Monday that the war cabinet had decided unanimously to “continue with its action in Rafah in order to exert military pressure on Hamas,” though it was not clear if that meant the latest airstrikes or something broader. A military spokesman would not say when troops might enter the crowded city, but described the evacuation as part of Israel’s plans to dismantle Hamas and to free hostages taken on Oct. 7.

Hours after the evacuation order, the political leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, issued a statement that the group had accepted a new cease-fire proposal from Qatar and Egypt, which have acted as intermediaries in peace talks. The group and Israeli officials said it was not referring to the proposal that Israel recently agreed to, leaving the conflict unresolved.

John F. Kirby, a White House national security spokesman, declined to comment on the Hamas response, saying the United States was reviewing it. Israeli officials said they, too, would review the proposal, but the prime minister’s office said it did not meet Israel’s demands.

On Sunday, the talks appeared to reach an impasse , with Israel and Hamas still sharply at odds over the duration of any truce, and each side blaming the other for the failure to strike a deal. Hamas wants a permanent cease-fire while Mr. Netanyahu of Israel has expressed openness to only a temporary halt in the fighting and has said Israel would invade Rafah with or without an agreement.

Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, met with the relatives of the hostages on Monday and told them that, “We are committed to achieving the war’s objectives, but Hamas’s rejection of any framework that would allow the release of the hostages compels us to start the Rafah operation,” according to a statement from his office.

“Even after the start of the operation in Rafah,” Mr. Gallant said, “all efforts to return the hostages will continue.”

Salama Marouf, the head of the Hamas-run Gaza government media office, said in a statement on Monday that the evacuation order showed that Israel “went into truce negotiations deceptively, without abandoning the idea of ​​a broad aggression against Rafah.” He said the announcement was “a real test of the seriousness” of the countries that had warned against an invasion of the city.

Thousands of people were leaving Rafah on Monday, according to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, which said that there had been “escalating Israeli airstrikes” in areas east of the city. In an interview, Dr. Marwan al-Hams, the director of Abu Yousef al-Najjar Hospital in Rafah, said that his hospital had received the bodies of 26 people killed by Israeli fire, and had treated 50 wounded people in the last day.

Israel’s closest ally, the United States, has urged it not to mount a major offensive into Rafah without a credible plan to protect civilians there, many of whom fled to the city as a last refuge from Israel’s airstrikes and ground invasion elsewhere in Gaza. The city is packed with about a million people, many of them living in makeshift tents. It is also a main entry point for aid from Egypt.

On Monday, President Biden spoke to Mr. Netanyahu and “updated” him on the hostage talks, which were continuing on Monday in Qatar, according to a brief summary of the call released by the White House. Mr. Biden also “reiterated his clear position on Rafah,” the White House statement said. Mr. Netanyahu’s office did not immediately release its own summary of the conversation.

After the Israeli military issued its evacuation order, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of Britain reiterated that he remained “deeply concerned” about an invasion, while Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry warned Israel against advancing what it called a “bloody and systematic” campaign to storm all of Gaza and displace its residents.

In Rafah, some Palestinians quickly dismantled their tents in the pouring rain and began leaving. Others questioned whether it was safe to leave. Gazans and aid groups have said that the Israeli military has bombed areas that it has previously designated as safe for civilians.

Nidal Kuhail, 29, a former resident of Gaza City, said he was overcome with anxiety and divided over what to do. The tent he was sheltering in was not in the area of Rafah covered by Israel’s evacuation order.

“If we have to leave, we will be entering the unknown,” Mr. Kuhail said. “Are we going to have a place to go? Are we going to be able to find a place to set up the tent?”

Workers for UNRWA, the main United Nations agency that aids Palestinians in Gaza, estimated on Monday that about 200 people an hour were fleeing the evacuation zone, said Sam Rose, the agency’s director of planning.

Israel was telling Palestinians to move to an area that includes al-Mawasi, a coastal section of Gaza it has advised people to go to for months, as well as areas farther north along the coast to Deir al-Balah. The military said the area had field hospitals, tents and larger supplies of food, water and medicine.

Israel was not calling for a “wide-scale evacuation of Rafah,” a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, said on Monday. “This is a very specific scoped operation at the moment to move people out of harm’s way.”

But Mr. Rose said that the area would not be able to safely accommodate all the civilians who have sheltered in Rafah, in part because parts of it are littered with unexploded bombs.

Going there would also move them farther from the entry points for desperately needed food, water, medicines and other supplies, which aid agencies have struggled to distribute around Gaza.

“They would basically be going back to oblivion,” Mr. Rose said.

Mahmoud Mohammed al-Burdeiny, 26, said he thought Israel had been using the threat of a Rafah invasion as a bluff to get a better deal from Hamas in cease-fire talks. But now the danger felt real, he said.

So Mr. al-Burdeiny and his wife began to pack their belongings and plan for the worst. They could take the doors of their house with them to use as shelter, they realized. And they could take apart their furniture to use as firewood.

“I do not want to see what happened to the people in Gaza City and in the north happen again in Rafah,” he said. “I am really so worried about my whole family.”

Some Palestinians said on Monday that they could not afford to leave. They said that a taxi out of Rafah would cost more than $260, and a motorized rickshaw about half that. A donkey-drawn cart would cost around $13, but even that was too expensive for many people.

Food prices in Rafah were also spiking, Palestinians said. Sugar rose to $10 per kilogram from $3. The price of fuel also jumped, to $12 a liter from $8.

“All the people around me are evacuating,” said Mousa Ramadan al-Bahabsa, 55, who was sheltering with his 11 children in a tent at a U.N. school in Rafah, and said the war had left him penniless.

“I do not know where to go or who to ask for help,” said Mr. al-Bahabsa, who said his family had already moved three times since October.

Despite pressure from the United States and other countries, Mr. Netanyahu has vowed to invade Rafah, saying that Hamas battalions hiding there must be destroyed. On Sunday, Mr. Netanyahu repeated that promise, declaring in a speech in English marking Holocaust Remembrance Day that Israel “will defeat our genocidal enemies.”

Colonel Shoshani said that a rocket attack on Sunday by the armed wing of Hamas, which killed four Israeli soldiers near the Kerem Shalom border crossing, was a “violent reminder” of the group’s presence in Rafah.

Aid groups have warned that an invasion of Rafah would be devastating to civilians there and in the north who are on the brink of starvation and rely on food and water entering Gaza from the Rafah border crossing.

“This is as bad as it gets, and will lead to horrifying levels of suffering and death,” said Kiryn Lanning, the International Rescue Committee’s country director for occupied Palestinian territory. “If not stopped, this offensive will result in catastrophic humanitarian consequences despite months of warnings.”

Reporting was contributed by Bilal Shbair , Isabel Kershner , Matthew Mpoke Bigg , Johnatan Reiss and Myra Noveck .

Vivek Shankar is a senior staff editor on the International desk. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News in San Francisco, Sydney and Washington. More about Vivek Shankar

Liam Stack is a Times reporter covering the Israel-Hamas war from Jerusalem. More about Liam Stack

Adam Rasgon reports from Israel for The Times's Jerusalem bureau. More about Adam Rasgon

Michael Levenson joined The Times in December 2019. He was previously a reporter at The Boston Globe, where he covered local, state and national politics and news. More about Michael Levenson

Our Coverage of the Israel-Hamas War

News and Analysis

The Israeli military said that it had  sent tanks into Rafah  and established control over the Gaza side of the border crossing with Egypt in what it called a limited operation.

Before the Israeli incursion into Rafah, the military told about 110,000 people sheltering in the southern Gaza city to evacuate .

Hours earlier, Hamas said it had agreed to a cease-fire plan  that Israel said did not meet its demands, the latest in a long series  of negotiating stumbles. Officials said that the proposal was mostly similar to one Israel had previously endorsed .

Hobbling Education for Years: Most of Gaza’s schools, including all 12 of its universities, have severe damage that makes them unusable , which could harm an entire generation of students, the U.N. and others say.

No Palestinian Flags at Eurovision: The organizers of the Eurovision Song Contest, a glitzy singing contest, said that attendees would be allowed to wave  only the flags of participating nations — including Israel’s.

Nonviolent Resistance in the West Bank: Issa Amro, a Palestinian activist who has been arrested and beaten for simple acts of defiance, is aiming to emulate Gandhi  at a time when violence is inescapable.

Campus Protests in the U.S.: On quads and lawns from coast to coast, U.S. colleges are grappling with a groundswell of student activism  over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Administrators are having to make controversial decisions .