This particular intelligence squared debate was a debate of four people in two teams of two that debated whether free speech was threatened on college campuses. Sean Harper, an executive director of the Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education at the University of Pennsylvania, argued on the side of free speech isn’t threatened on campus. His overall arguments, and points were the weakest out of all the debaters. Harper argues that in all his years of working at many universities, he has never seen a written institutional policy that restricts student’s freedom of speech. Contrary to his position in the debate, Harper claims student’s freedom of speech is suppressed by remarks of other professors, or staff at universities. What …show more content…
It wasn’t made clear what Harper meant by predominately white. For example, a university can have 51% white students and 49% percent students of color, and still be labeled as predominately white. In any classroom there surely won't be only one student of color in a classroom full of white students. Not every classroom in universities and junior colleges is a classroom of 200 students, some colleges don’t even have any classroom that can hold that many students. Maybe Damien would of spoke out to the professor if the comments were made in a smaller classroom setting, such as a classroom with 30 students because he didn’t want to make a big scene in front of a large crowd of students. Harper failed to use representatives examples in his arguments as well, he talks as if people of color are the only people whose free speech is being suppressed on campus. White students have surely experienced instances where they felt their free speech was suppressed, and Harper argues as if white students have never experienced their free speech being suppressed. So if Harper wants to talk that student’s free speech is being suppressed, he needs to include all students and not students of color. The mere fact that Harper talks as if white students don’t experience their free speech being suppressed undermines white students takes on how better improve campus social environments, which is the goal of all the
Charles R. Lawrence intended audience in his article “On Racist Speech” is college students and universities. His sense of tone is forthcoming. Lawerence word choice sets the tone by using the words conspicuous,dissenter, and bigot. The article gives examples of how universities do not protect minority college students. Lawrence states that universities should protect their students He also gives an example of how universities have tried to have rules to ban racist speech yet they have proven ineffective in stopping racial slurs. The regulations have not stopped the verbal brutality yet it has stopped the occurrences of physical fights. He mentions how students do not have any need to be hurt verbally.
Jumping handcuffed from a third-story window at the Fulton County Pretrial Services in Atlanta, the man who leaped from the window fell head first and died. The 22-year-old man, Tyquan Devoun Richard was going to enter a drug intervention program at the Fulton County Superior Court at 10am when criminal law arrest him for a weapons charge.
The want for money drastically affected the Younger’s and changed their lives for the worst. In Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun, A family in 1950s Chicago want for money was putting a negative strain on the family.
Have you ever felt stuck? Wherever you are, it’s the absolute last place you want to be. In the book Into the Wild, Chris McCandless feels stuck just like the average everyday person may feel. Chris finds his escape plan to the situation and feels he will free himself by going off to the wild. I agree with the author that Chris McCandless wasn’t a crazy person, a sociopath, or an outcast because he got along with many people very well, but he did seem somewhat incompetent, even though he survived for quite some time.
At this point in a college freshmen’s life, they have been in school for 14 years. Throughout those 14 years, freshmen have learned the Bill of Rights like they’ve learned how to walk and the first amendment the way they’ve learned to talk. The first amendment has been engrained in a child from the first history class in 5th grade, to the fifth history class in 9th grade and the eighth class in their senior year. In those eight years, a student has the first amendment in their head to bring to college and express themselves how they see fit and how they have been socialized to do so. According to Dinesh D’Souza, Stuart Taylor and Tim Robbins freedom of speech has been inhibited and taken out by politics and political correctness and fueled heavily by the societies need for preferential treatment.
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.
“Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both” (Roosevelt). The goal of America’s legal system as we know it is that everyone is given an equal opportunity to stick up for what they may or may not have done, as described by former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Also this is what officials strive for, it is not always the case. Facts can be skewed, distorted, or misrepresented to make one side seem to be guilty without a doubt and to make the other side seem as if they have done nothing wrong. The Crucible by Arthur Miller begins and ends with one-sided accusations of witchcraft. It all results from a group of girls who had been dancing in the woods. After two fall sick, the accusations begin. The girls who were dancing, especially Abigail Williams begin blaming others to look less guilty themselves. Accusations are flying left and right so that soon, hundreds are in jail and over a dozen are executed. Abby’s main goal is to get rid of Elizabeth Proctor, so she can be with John Proctor, a man she previously had an affair with. However, John is not interested in Abby and his
In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse and violence directed at people of color, lesbians, and gay men, and other historically persecuted groups has plagued the United States. Among the settings of these expressions of intolerance are college and university campuses, where bias incidents have occurred sporadically since the mid-1980's. Outrage, indignation and demands for change are the responses to these incidents - understandably, given the lack of racial and social diversity among students, faculty and administrators on most campuses. Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or olicies prhibiting speech that offends any group based on race gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.
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.
Witch hunts” constantly reoccur throughout history - in 1600s, 1953 and in 2014. Good morning, fellow directors. Today, I want to demonstrate that “the crucible” by Arthur Miller in 1953 is not just a play for 1953, but a play that relates to any period of time, notably to our modern society. The crucible is an allegory of 1953 McCarthyism and social chaos of the time. Today’s government manipulated the truth creates the fear of “outlawed bikies gangs” similar to 1692 theocratic government creates fear of witches and McCarthy’s communist terror. Unfortunately, the truth is never clear cut, but skewed, twisted and sculpted lies that shockingly benefit a small governing body and its ideologies. Therefore, ‘The Crucible’ is a worthwhile play to be shown in Queensland Theatre as it reminds us of an invaluable lesson and could prevent the same foolish action reoccurring on future generations. The play intertwines with significant themes such as lies, truth, power, stereotypes and mass hysteria which are pivotal dynamics in today’s society.
“Man masters nature not by force but by understanding. This is why science has succeeded where magic failed: because it has looked for no spell to cast over nature”. From the beginning of time man and nature has been in conflict with one another because, as a whole, there is no cooperating. Each one tirelessly wants its way. The Man is fighting for dominance and nature w never yielding its authority. In American Literature, many authors illustrate this theme in their writing. Specifically the writers Jack London in The Law Of Life, Stephen Crane The Open Boat and Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Fin. Each explores the relationship between humans and nature but with slightly different methods. Mark Twain uses nature in a realistic way, Jack London in a naturalistic way and Stephen Crane constitutes a combination of both.
Civilized, a word that has so many definitions, but so little meaning. In the case of Native Americans versus the European settlers and White America, “Civilized” was always the word in question. In the white’s eyes civilization was directly linked to farming, Christianity, and could only be obtained through assimilation into the white culture. Many Native Americans chose to assimilate out of necessity, seeking refuge from the white man, through the white man, while others chose to hold strong to their roots. We see the Native Americans assimilating in Sally M Reece’s Letter to Reverend Daniel Campbell when Reece talks about the “improvements” the Cherokees are making.
Every day, more and more attempts of banning books and taking away the rights of our First Amendment get violated. The challenging of a book is the attempt to remove or restrict materials, and the banning is the removal of these materials. I believe that books should not be banned for these reasons.
Arthurian legends have left an indelible mark on literature, art, books and popular culture for centuries. The values and themes derived from these tales have been a part of the characteristics that shape these genres, particularly assisting in films. Attributes commonly found in film, such as companionship, adventure, romance, heroism and chivalry all find their roots from Arthurian stories which centre themselves around these themes. Through movies, like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, filmmakers not only include Arthurian stories directly into the storylines but the relationships between characters align with Arthurian values. Similarly, Romeo and Juliet, which is not as obvious in its display of Arthurian tales, still contains these values
Students in college are paying for an education that will prepare them for their future, and are not paying to be treated as children with rules on what they can and cannot say either in verbal speeches or in print media such as university newspapers. Students are limited in the class room, and are restricted from their freedom of speech. Controversy between students may be caused by saying biased phrases or words, therefore, the universities prohibit their first amendment rights. “But the notion that ticklish conversations must be scrubbed clean of controversy has a way of leaking out and spreading.