Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gender discrimination in the sports world
Gender inequality in sports
Gender discrimination in the sports world
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gender discrimination in the sports world
Political Correctness is defined as the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. “Political Correctness” was first used in 1793 in a U.S. Supreme Court judgement in a political-lawsuit. It is stated that first appliance of the term in its modern sense wasn’t until 1970, said by Toni Cade in the anthology The Black Woman. The term became popular in the 1990s, when a conservative author named Dinesh Souza used the term to denounce efforts to promote multiculturalism and opposition to hate speech. Being politically correct can cause obstruction of language, which is not well-advised. …show more content…
The team was disqualified on behalf of the “no taunting rule”, which includes raising your arms. A kid should be able to celebrate their own personal achievement. Unfortunately, this child, along with the rest of his teammates, cannot celebrate as it may offend the losing team, and whomever created the rules does not yearn to be “politically incorrect”. Then, there was a situation at a public school in California. A girl was told that she would not be permitted to wear a cross. Her orientation supervisor explained to her that the religious piece could be offensive to other people. This, along with the track boy and government in Seattle, are being treated unfairly in the name of being politically …show more content…
In extreme cases, political correctness can be considered unconstitutional, as it goes against the first amendment: freedom of speech. Usually, that isn’t the situation. Being politically correct, in its simplest form, is just being kind. “Politically Correct”, in fact, can actually be considered a misnomer. It isn’t about being right, it’s about being respectful and considerate. For example, you don’t just walk up to a black person and call them the n word. That’s incredibly rude and is considered politically incorrect. Despite the annoyance conservatives may show with being politically correct, the truth is without it, hate crimes based on race, sexuality, sexual identity, and physical ability, are likely to multiply. It seems to be apparent that innumerable people who talk down on political correctness only do it as an excuse to get away with being outright offensive to people, often minorities. A good example of this occurred just last month. Republican Presidential front runner Donald J. Trump has
Michiko Kakutani's essay “The Word Police” is a refreshing look at a literary world policed by the Politically Correct (P.C.). She pokes fun at the efforts of P.C. policepersons such as Rosalie Maggio, author of The Bias-Free Word Finder, a Dictionary of Nondiscriminatory Language . But in mocking authors like Maggio, Kakutani emphasizes that efforts of the P.C. police are often exaggerated to the point of silliness and can even become a linguistic distraction from the real issues. In fact, such filtering or censorship of words can lead to larger problems within the English language: “getting upset by phrases like ‘bullish on America' or ‘the City of Brotherly Love' tends to distract attention from the real problems of prejudice and injustice that exist in society at large” (686). According to Kakutani, over-exaggerated political correctness just serves in complicating our words and diluting the messages. But really, the problem in P.C. advice on word-choice is the exaggeration of inclusive ness. Kakutani addresses the P.C. police's righteous motive: “a vision of a more just, inclusive society in which racism, sexism, and prejudice of all sorts have been erased” (684). But where does one draw the line between writing inclusively and walking on eggshells? What is politically correct? Must writers assume the worst of their audiences when debating whether to mutate the spelling of “women” to “womyn” in order to avoid sexist language? The truth is, writing purely inclusively is an arduous task; it requires consistent and careful consideration of many exterior elements such as audience, literary content, and societal context. An examination of these elements reveals just how difficult ...
I will be explaining why I think it's not ok for kids to get a participation trophy. Giving children a participation trophy in sports gives the child a false sense of confidence and will affect them in the future if they go into pro sports, they won't be able to handle a loss.
He didn’t take his sport seriously because he knew he was going to get a trophy anyway, whether he won or lost. Giving a trophy to a kid who maybe didn’t participate in a game but tried his absolute hardest in practice to get better is understandable. However, giving a kid who did nothing in practice to make himself better just shows that child that you don’t need to work for anything in life because either way you will get rewarded. “There are two kinds of people, those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there.” And what about those kids who aren’t that great at activities, or they don’t show up to practices? Should they still get a trophy? Are they qualified to sit in the same category as a kid who works their butts off in practice, shows up everyday, and is a good sport? I understand showing that everyone is equal, but there comes a point when you have to show a child that they need to work for what they
Is Campus Hate Speech Code the right way to give equal value to all students? In recent years, many public schools, colleges and universities have started to implement hate speech codes to combat discrimination and harassment on campuses. In Campus Hate Speech Codes, authored by Gerard Uelmen, it is explained clearly that speech code is morally just response to campus intolerance; thus, it does not solve the discriminatory problems on campuses completely and maintain the balance between individual and group rights. Nevertheless, some claims mentioned in the article about the benefits of campus hate speech code are discussed correctly, while several arguments of speech code opponents were not supported sufficiently. In Campus Hate Speech Codes, the author writes about the positive and negative aspects of hate speech code implementation on campuses.
I admit that everyone has the right to freedom of thought and freedom speech. However, several questions come to my mind: Do people really need to use offensive speech to say what they think about the other? Does offensive speech resolve problems? Is really necessary to use it? As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes says, ‘“…separating speech that deserved protection from dangerous speech that did not’” (Richey, 61). The position shows us that offensive speech that provokes violence action should be ban. So, why are people using offensive speech, to provoke violence actions where many people could die? Every time when someone uses offensive words, those are going to incite some people’s response, it could be just a verbal response back or grave disturbance or confrontations between both sides. As a result of offensive speech or the right to say whatever people want; some people will die. Therefore, what is the purpose to use offensive speech? To provoke violence and to harm, and whoever heard it directly or indirectly most probably want to respond in the same term and experience any emotional pain. So, offensive speech could incite rampage worldwide. People around the world have different beliefs, education, and religion, which is the essence of human being, to be
Leaders and activists in the Civil Rights Movement highlighted the significance of rejecting slurs and insults that were used to degrade and dehumanize African Americans. They encouraged the use of language that acknowledged each person equally. This change in terminology contributed to changing public conversation and increasing awareness of the significance of racial equality. There have been changes in the meanings of some phrases over time that were used to support inequality or maintain racial stereotypes have been reclaimed or rephrased. For example, words like “Colored” or “negro” are no longer used and are now insulting and out of
PC policies have also compromised the accuracy of educational content in textbooks. Material close to being offensive is removed or adjusted to satisfy the super-sensitive or to avoid any unforeseen complaints. For example, American Indians can't be depicted with long braids, in rural settings, or on reservations, even though many American Indians do have long braids and live in rural settings or on reservations. If the depictions of our historical figures are incorrect, then the new PC textbooks should ensure their historical accuracy and footnote each change appropriately. In addition, if the information is correct but is being altered to satisfy sensitive groups, it should be changed back, regardless of the offending potential. How far could this evolve? Will we continue to erase provocative and controversial details of our history? It “dumbs down” our textbooks, leaving them bland and far less interesting. This effort to cleanse our history is wrong and it is killing our education efforts/system today.
Racism is a very touchy subject for most people, as issues concerning free speech. As other people might argue, that making racist comments is part of free speech, everyone should have the right without restriction. Others view these comments in much more depth as they can lead to serious consequence. “It has been 40 years since Star Trek had Uhura and Sulu, longer since To Kill a Mockingbird and In the Heat of the Night. Shouldn’t we be seeing a more honest depiction of society by now or is that just naive? Perhaps the problem is as much political correctness” (Levinson). Purhapse, Levinson is right. Being a racist is not acceptable, it is only the twenty-first century and humanity still can’t get the hint that racism is not acceptable. Racism is like a gene it is inherited from your parents, grandparents and so forth. Temioo has a poster on Deviantart called racism (Temioo). The message Temioo is trying to get out to the public is that no matter your race, color, religion or fing...
Firstly, political correctness is founded upon the assumption that discrimination and prejudice exists within society. Of course the goal of being politically correct is so that it affects communication in a positive way. It’s to prevent arguments and people from getting offended. What we are not trying to achieve is some sort of polite utopia – it would be a dull and dreary place to live.
Political correctness is a term almost everyone hears about in the news. There has been much talk about it especially in the previous presidential election, politics and even in our daily lives. We have heard from Ted Cruz that political correctness is killing people, how Starbucks decided to remove their Christmas cups, and how as a society, we have become to uptight and too politically correct. So has political correctness gone too far or not? No, political correctness has not gone too far, and it aims to respect all peoples of different race, sex, and religions.
All we want is to be accepted, and respected! In fact, the only R-word in our dictionary is RESPECT!” This quote shows how the use of one word can effect someones life (Powers). Thats why the use of politically incorrect language is demeaning and disrespectful; Therefore, we should try to be avoided when using the word
1. The purpose of these articles is to persuade the general public that while the notion of political correctness deserves a warm welcome, the result of implementing policies to support the idea leaves a lot to be desired. 2. These articles do have a bias. Claire Trevett and BJ Gallagher both believe that by endeavoring to protect everyone’s feelings, the progress to build relationships and understand others’ different perspectives has led to inhibition and resentment to roam free.
Oleanna Essay Nowadays, it’s difficult to voice your opinion without offending someone and their views. To avoid doing this, society is suppose to follow this thing called Political Correctness. Political Correctness is the avoidance of racial slurs and actions that could offend someone and their views.
Censorship is not a recent development. It wasn’t imposed properly or there weren’t strict regulations before. In the article “Hate Radio” by Patricia J. Williams, the writer says that radio was a powerful source of media. It had influenced a lot of people. The power of media can change the course of history. The host on the radio such as Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern were also influencing a lot of people. The theme was not merely the specific intolerance on hot topics as race and gender, but a much more general contempt for the world, a verbal stoning of anything different. Most of the audience on this radio shows were white and male. Most of the callers have spent their lives walling themselves off from any real experience with blacks, feminists, lesbians or gays. Rush Limbaugh tell his audience “what you believe inside, you can talk about it in the marketplace.” Unfortunately what’s inside is then mistaken for what’s outside, treated empirical and political reality. Most of the talks on the radio were being racist against the blacks. This had influenced so much that a statistics showed that 53 percent of people in America agree that blacks and Latinos are less intelligent than whites, and a majority believed that blacks are lazy, violent, welfare-dependent and unpatriotic. Hence this stereotype among the people was due to the lack of censorship.(Williams,502)
Political correctness is nice in theory because it advocates sensitivity for others, but this solution does not allow for any progress and regresses any current progress (Gallagher). The solution is truth. The truth shall allow America to grow. The truth can show what the actual problem is instead of shunning an idea of a problem. This ultimately kills the individual’s basic right to express oneself.