Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why academic freedom is important
Political correctness and freedom of speech
Academic freedom in education
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why academic freedom is important
Political correctness is more prevalent today than ever before. We live in a world where what you say is nearly as important as what you do. To start off it is best if we define what exactly political correctness is. The best way to describe political correctness would be; avoiding certain language that excludes or insults people. This word originated in the U.S., and the Oxford Dictionary defines it as such; advocacy of or conformity to politically correct views; politically correct language or behavior. There are many aspects to consider when speaking about political correctness and the ramifications caused by enforcing it. We will discuss many of the different aspects involved, and try to shed some light on why it is so important to question …show more content…
Many times, people feel like there is benefits to silencing speech on topics that are not to their liking, instead of thinking of why they do not want to hear about it in the first place. By silencing these topics and stopping the critics they are preventing people from hearing more ideas. How can we determine what ideas are good and which are bad if we do not hear all of them? So, in this writing I would like to bring up a few reasons as to why political correctness should be questioned. Stopping the flow of ideas for any reason is detrimental to our growth as a society, and political correctness does just that. I would also like to discuss the aspect of possible danger because of political correctness. There may come times where people’s very lives could be at stake. Also, political powers often use the excuse of political correctness to inhibit and prevent certain ideas they may not agree with from being debated. We must also consider hate crimes, and whether a person’s beliefs and associations should be considered sufficient to secure a criminal …show more content…
To establish certain areas for free speech, it is then assumed that other areas speech is restricted. In addition, the actual topics and speakers allowed to speak in the “free speech zone” are often regulated by administrators. At the University of Northern Colorado, the dean of students Katarina Rodriguez, defended the “Language Matters” campaign that was discouraging students from saying “All lives matter.” The dean went on to say it was, “about being mindful how words can affect others and the conversations provide an opportunity for individuals to understand why particular language may be hurtful to someone else in our community of learners.” (citation needed) She goes on to say, “We believe that fostering dialogue on a college campus so that multiple perspectives are explored and debated is the essence of free speech.” There is a notion that by censoring these dominant ideas that we are championing free speech. Allowing all ideas to be expressed helps give groups that may have been marginalized in the past a voice to express their side of the issue. We must be mindful the danger of misusing language. The practice of imprecise language can obscure ideas that are
Throughout America, people place a high value in their freedom of speech. This right is protected by the first Amendment and practiced in communities throughout the country. However, a movement has recently gained momentum on college campuses calling for protection from words and ideas that may cause emotional discomfort. This movement is driven mainly by students who demand that speech be strictly monitored and punishments inflicted on individuals who cause even accidental offense. Greg Lukianoff and Johnathan Haidt discuss how this new trend affects the students mentally and socially in their article The Coddling of the American Mind published in The Atlantic Monthly. Lukianoff and Haidt mostly use logical reasoning and references to
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with us.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom becomes limited via “free speech zones.” Free Speech Zones are areas allocated for the purpose of free speech on campus. These zones bypass our constitutional right to freedom of speech by dictating where and when something can be said, but not what can be said.
Freedom of speech is the right of civilians to openly express their opinions without constant interference by the government. For the last few years, the limitations and regulations on freedom of speech have constantly increased. This right is limited by use of expression to provoke violence or illegal activities, libel and slander, obscene material, and proper setting. These limitations may appear to be justified, however who decides what is obscene and inappropriate or when it is the wrong time or place? To have so many limits and regulations on freedom of speech is somewhat unnecessary. It is understood that some things are not meant to be said in public due to terrorist attacks and other violent acts against our government, but everything should not be seen as a threat. Some people prefer to express themselves angrily or profanely, and as long as it causes no har...
This occurs even when the regulations arent enforced souly because they fear being punished for what they may say. As shown in Silverglate and Lukianoffs essay, some campuses go to great extents when giving students permission to give free speeches. They claim that “as long as the policy exists, the threat of enfocement remains real and will inevitably influence some peoples speech” (636). This is a valid argument because they then proceed by saying that The First Amendment calls it a clinging effect. Another effect of these regulations would be that colleges are teaching their students that their opinions and beliefs should not be shared when they are even slightly controversial. Wasserman argues that word choice is an “essential component of free-speech protection”(640) because they allow one to express him or herself
Unlike many other countries America has freedom of speech. Even in other countries in Europe people are not allowed to use “hate speech” and they can be sent to prison for it. Fortunately, the American constitution defends people’s freedom of speech, no matter how controversial it is. Political correctness diminishes people’s free speech. It may not be direct but even indirectly the knowledge that someone might have adverse consequences; such as losing a job as a result of their speech is unacceptable. People have the right to state their opinions without others infringing on them, it was the principle in which America was founded. The first amendment of the constitution of the United States declares that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (US Const. amend. I, sec. i). While the first amendment only affects congress’s control over free speech, it indicates that free speech is a right that people must have. Some people are of the opinion that if something can be found offensive
Instead, Bok suggests that we address the problem by communicating with those who are causing these disturbances and understand . Also in the essay, “Freedom of Speech Means Freedom to Hate”, Christopher Hitchens explains why banning those hate speeches may be an unwise decision for society as a whole as freedom of speech does sometimes prevent the tyranny of majority from happening. While the essay, “Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet”, Amanda Hess makes for the argument that the internet have become a new and terrifying way for people to bully women who uses it. The last article, “The Case for Censoring Hate Speech,” Sean McElwee argues that censoring is required to help protect the minorities and to foster a better society. Freedom of expression should not be limited for limiting speech does not help solve the root problem and it would be near impossible for any person to regulate what people are allowed to say and not allowed to say without having any sort of bias against anyone in
In 21st century society, it’s common for people to publicly identify with certain groups that they relate to. Of these, the most common are political groups such as, Republicans and democrats, and needless to say they each have varying views. These groups even have sub cultures that don’t necessarily agree with the former party's platform. Everyone can relate to a time when they’ve either said, or been around someone when they’ve said something that isn’t P.C, or what we define as “Politically correct”. To be politically correct is to Avoid all forms of expressions and actions that exclusively exclude, or target those who are socially disadvantaged.”. Some definitions of the term include “Often taken to extremes”.
College campuses have always been the sites where students can express their opinions without fear. There have been many debates about the merits of allowing free speech on campus. Some students and faculties support allowing free speech on campus, while others believe that colleges should restrict free speech to make the college’s environment safer for every student. Free speeches are endangered on college campuses because of trigger warning, increasing policing of free speech, and the hypersensitivity of college students.
Freedom of speech is archetypally recognised as a basic human right in free and democratic societies. When contending whether speech that may be deemed offensive should be safeguarded one may refer to the judgement of Redmond-Bate v. DPP:
Some people say that political correctness should not be an issue and that it may have run amok. I understand that our First Amendment states our right to speak freely, but there are definitely certain situations where it matters what people say. My belief is that when you have any political following or any influence on a population you should be careful with the words you say. Average Americans who do not have any influence on the mass populous should not be hindered from completing their jobs. Political correctness is one of the largest problems we have in America today and we are not taking it seriously enough.
A story commonly spread through word of mouth, Charles Perrault wrote an early rendition of Little Red Riding Hood in 1697. Between the late 17th century and today, there have been a few changes in societal norms, customs, and understandings of social values. To summarize, laws based on religion have given way to laws based on science…in turn, scientists have taken their newfound social power and discovered ways to destroy all life on Earth…following that, humans have practiced leaving the planet, preparing for the inevitable day when our self-created nuclear holocaust gives us no other choice…and lastly, various oppressed social groups, recognizing that they would also like a seat on their starship to salvation, have fought for their civil rights and equality through various social reform movements. A side effect, political correctness, is the attempt to rid the English language of any terms, phrases, or expressions that would encourage our society to remain rooted in its biased theories of the past. Thus, we are now at an age where a maxim is placed upon the empowerment of the individual, no matter who you are or what formerly oppressed group you may represent, with an equally strong maxim placed upon breaking any barriers that block the empowerment of the individual.
Political correctness: “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”. In recent times, there has been a large controversy on Political Correctness. While some people say that America has been too politically correct, they don’t realize that they’re treating people with disrespect. The reason people try to stop the usage of slurs and offensive mascots is so they aren’t discriminated against. Native Americans have just as many rights as any other person in America, yet we see their culture appropriated constantly in the media with nothing done about it. While
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...
In the debate, “Freedom of Speech Threatened on Campus”, four panelist argued either in favor or against the motion. In this case the winners of this debate where the pro side due to their good use of supporting arguments. As for the opposing team they lost audience support due to their weak presentation of arguments. This paper will focus on one of the opposing panelist whose arguments were unsupported. Shaun Harper the Director of the center for the study of Race & Equity in Education, of the University of Pennsylvania argued that freedom speech is not threatened in universities by speech codes rather students who are judging does students voicing their opinion are the ones who are threating their freedom of speech. In order to understand