Recently, more and more people began to concentrate on the problem of Free Speech. Lots of unnecessary troubles in campus were produced by free speech. Thus, the “trigger warnings”, which is a kind of way to prevent unnecessary troubles, are under ardent debate. Even some major media, such as the New York Times, began to focus on reporting the materials about trigger warnings. In the articles from American Now, authors Jennifer Medina, Brianne Richson and Jon Overton expressed their opinions about the trigger warnings, the ways to prevent unnecessary troubles, respectively. The trigger warnings are not very useful and helpful because it may increase the time to prepare for the class, make more troubles for students and full of flaws that could not eliminate the topics that students don’t want to see.
First, Trigger warnings will let
…show more content…
Even if a professor is full of experiences, it is impossible for a professor to find out whole sensitive topics that may cause troubles. “Trigger warnings run into the same problem as proposed hate-speech laws: where do they stop? Anything can be a trigger, from hot dogs to Nazis to Mike Tyson to the color yellow. The right smell, sound, word, or image can initiate a painful flashback for a particular person, who can’t always anticipate them. The triggers don’t have to be traditionally traumatic words, phrases, or concepts, so you can’t easily predict what will set someone off.”(P99, Overton). Author Overton thinks that students have the obligation to inform the professor that what is a potential trigger to them prior to the class because professor cannot find out the topics that may cause problems fully. Hence, not only the efficiency but also the reliability of this function is better than “trigger warnings”. So students should submit the topics that could cause them to feel upset to the professor before the
In Kate Manne’s article “Why I Use Trigger Warnings”, she argues that trigger warnings are an important feature to incorporate in an educator’s curriculum, but not as a safety cushion for millennials to fall on to avoid work and serious or uncomfortable topics. Using PTSD studies along with failed tests of exposure therapy for the foundation of her points, she explains that trigger warnings can help mentally prepare a student for what they are about to read instead of blindsiding them and throwing them into a potentially anxiety-induced state where they can’t focus. Manne also brings up how people can react when reading political or religious material in comparison towards reading possibly triggering material in order to differentiate between
First they explain how students have recently started expecting that their professors publish trigger warnings, alerts that students expect with anything that may cause distress, in the name of protecting students who may be reminded of trauma by being exposed to certain topics. While proving the fallacies in the concept of trigger warnings, Lukianoff and Haidt quote Harvard professor, Jeannie Suk 's essay about teaching rape law when students are determined to have protection from unpleasant ideas and demand trigger warnings. She says it is like trying to teach “a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he 'll become distressed at the sight of blood (48).” This shows how the students’ desire for protection cause difficulties in teaching for
The authors of “Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, use ethos, logos, and pathos convey their negative stance regarding trigger warnings and the effect they on education. Lukianoff and Haidt’s use of rhetorical appeal throughout the article adds to the author’s credibility and the strength of the argument against increasing the use of trigger warnings in school material. The authors, Lukianoff and Haidt, rely heavily upon the use of logos, such as relations between conflicts surrounding trigger warnings and other historical conflicts impacting student ethics. Examples of the use of these logical appeals are the relation between the Columbine Massacre and the younger generations ideology. The author goes on to mention other societal turning points such
They should start discussions about rape and sexist cases because it’s going on in today’s society and for people to know it’s okay to talk about it if it ever happened to them. Colleges need to prepare students for the real word so they need to have real life discussions in class for the students that are growing up and entering the workforce. College campuses are going through the mircoagression theory and professors fear to talk about trigger warnings in class when both students and professors should have freedom of speech in classrooms. “One of my biggest concerns about trigger warnings,” Roff wrote, “is that they will apply not just to those who have experienced trauma, but to all students, creating an atmosphere in which they are encouraged to believe that there is something dangerous or damaging about discussing difficult aspects of our history.” (49). Professors try to avoid teaching material that will upset sensitive students, but instead they should start warning students about the materials they are going to teach and set boundaries so students can know what they are about to learn to prevent teachers from getting in trouble or risk getting fired from their
This source supplies my paper with more evidence of how freedom of speech is in a dangerous place. American has always stood by freedom of speech, and to see how social media platforms try to manipulate and take off as the choose to increase slight bias is unpleasant. The article establishes a worry to the fellow readers that hold freedom of speech so high and that it is at risk. The article manages to explain why freedom of speech is in danger, and why there should be no limits to free speech.
In the editorial “Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt examine the political correctness on college campuses and how it may be hurting students’ mental health. They explain by allowing campuses to discuss words, ideas, and subjects that can cause discomfort or give offense can provide positive attributes like helping students to produce better arguments and more productive discussions over differences. Does Lukianoff and Haidt provide sufficient evidence about how college campuses should raise attention about the need to balance freedom of speech to help students in their future and education to lead the reader to agree with their argument? The answer is yes,
According to The Coddling of the American Mind, trigger warnings and microaggressions confine professors’ and well-educated adults’ unalienable right of speech; furthermore, they can impact one’s health. Protecting rights have a unison consensus; the authors unite them and the audience together to persuade the well-educated adults to protest the use of trigger warnings and microaggressions. While concluding that vindictive protectiveness is the reason for trigger warnings and microaggressions Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt state, “A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety.” (45) The word “policing” holds a negative connotation implying regulation, and no one wants their first amendment right of free speech stolen from them. Also the idea that trigger warnings and microaggressions may lead to depression and anxiety gives more logical reasoning to end trigger warnings and microaggressions in higher level education. When the authors specify the change that colleges should make, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt write their idea of the purpose of college, “Rather than
In the article The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, the authors go into great detail of describing the effects of trigger warnings. Using real world examples, Lukianoff and Haidt describes how college students are oversensitive and carried along the school year. The authors explain how this is a negative thing for the college students going into the work force in the future.
Approximately 83% (5 out of 6) of all males have never been a victim of cyberbullying. This evidence helps explain why schools should not limit students’ online speech because the majority of the students are not affected by cyberbullying, making no reason for new reinforcements on the students. In document D, the court sided with the students, but the students must serve ten days, but the ten day suspension will not be shown on their records. It must pose a threat, there was no threat so they sided with the students.
In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into
The nature of the arguments offered against these dissenting voices are very troubling; so too their political effects. The arguments fall into two groups. First, professors are charged with showing no concern for the feeling of others: they lack taste and judgment; they are insensitive, self-indulgent and offend others at a time when emotions are raw. In being so inattentive to their students' emotional sensitivities, dissenting faculty violate the trust students place in them. Now is not the time for critique, but for emotional nurturing, reassurance and national solidarity.
On December 15, 1791, the first amendment- along with the rest of the Bill of Rights- was passed by congress. Although the amendment allows verbal freedom to the citizens of America, many argue that it also comes with great risks.The possibility of both mental and physical harm to citizens through the practice of free speech should be taken into consideration. Limiting free speech has potentially saved lives by monitoring what a person can or can not say that could cause distress to the public (e.g.- yelling “bomb” on an airplane). Others argue that the limitation of free speech will hinder our progress as a nation, and could potentially lead to our downfall through governmental corruption. In a society where the freedom of speech is a reality, one must question the risks and limits of that right.
In the words of Bertrand Russell, “Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom” (Russell). Fear causes many problems in our lives. Fear influences many of a person’s actions and decisions. However, people usually regret the decisions or actions they made out of fear. Also, these actions and decisions can cause problems for those people in their future. Fear is a harmful emotion, for it clouds people’s judgement, disables them from taking action, and causes them to make decisions that they will regret later.
In society the topic of free speech comes up very frequently. One side will argue that there should be no limit on what someone wants to say, while others believe that the idea on full free speech is dangerous and should be restricted. In a video that was presented to us there was a debate that conquered this topic on why or why not this should be allowed. This topic of free speech has gone on for decades and continues to be a fight on whether it should be limited.
Public safety covers a wide variety of people and organizations, but carries one common theme and that is, the public’s safety. This course has broadened my knowledge on the many roles that make the public safety sector go around and the role the public plays in it as well. My thoughts before the course were close minded and to the point. I quickly realized that policing is not as cut and dry as I once portrayed it to be. Society is always changing and adapting, and it is the job of the those in public safety to adapt and change with it. The mindset that I grew up with, in rural Saskatchewan, was the police are good people and you will only need to deal with them if you break the law or see someone break the law. My answers in the module 1 survey reflected my upbringing. My first thought for