Simplicity, or better said, the quality or condition of being easy to understand or do, is something that defines our ability to connect as humans. We like things to be as quickly explainable as possible, and we strive to find ways to show other people the way we do things or interact easily. This is the quintessential definition of simplicity, and there’s no better way to explain it. On the surface, everyone is created equal; in God’s image. Whether or not someone believes that is irrelevant, because we are all born with one mind and one body; what you do or is done to those two things are irrelevant, because this brings everyone together, regardless of culture. At the same time, it can also be a curse to some. Simplicity can also be …show more content…
The fact that we can be truthful and hurtful at the same time will usually be respected in society, and this is because being afraid to say something isn’t simple at all, it’s a reaction that we make to our own words, and we will most usually never like to say it, but it’s required of us. Someone has to say the truth regardless of who doesn’t want to hear it, and this is because equality and simplicity go hand in hand. The fact that we all can agree on most subjects in a classroom environment confirms this; like dissolves like, if you will. Our minds are adapted to each setting we are placed in, regardless of us realizing it or not. Word choice, deposition, rhetoric, and mood are all affected based on what our environment looks like. You can compare this to several campuses in controversy over the actions of a few people; problems with authority travel through a crowd very quickly not because of the mindset, but because of the environment which so happens to change the mindset. Furthermore, without simplicity, equality cannot exist. This is relatable to the Emancipation Proclamation told by Abraham Lincoln; whether or not everyone agrees or understands, one must put it simply: all men are created
Although some like Conor Friedersdorf, of the Atlantic, categorized students as “intolerant bullies, (34)” meaning that the reasons for protests were not really reasons at all. Chang argues that the issues students are expressing need to be improved upon as if not, we will continue to go round and round in this vicious cycle. The addition of the apartheid in South Africa backs up Chang’s argument as there is a consensus of it being a serious issue. This explains why he included this piece of history and how it relates to college campuses. Encouraging critics to listen to students, just as Meyer did to those of color, is the only way to prevent today's youth from bring up the same issues in future years. Just as Chang predicted, the next school year brought protesters to hundreds of colleges and universities. What happened at Mizzou was just the beginning of a country wide movement for racial justice on campuses that hasn’t stopped
In his essay, “The Evolution of Simplicity,” American conservative political and cultural commentator David Brooks examines the modern obsession with the simplification of life. His essay hints at man’s tendency to overcomplicate various aspects of day-to-day activities and failure to appreciate life for its true beauty. Brooks warns that this over complication of the nation can leave us swamped with stress and spread to thin, spending too much of our energy and focus on unimportant and virtually irrelevant facets of our existence.
Every individual in society and in a community is unique in their own ways, and their diversity shows up in many ways. Some of these ways include: religion, race, socioeconomic status, lifestyle, and so on. Everyone’s backgrounds are different, and this is what creates diversity in people. Even though everyone might not be the same, only by uniting everyone can we create the big picture. It’s like a puzzle—even though people are different, we can come together to create a big picture that couldn’t be created by puzzle pieces of the same shape. To me, diversity symbolizes the unique backgrounds that we come from. Every individual in their communities and in their society are influenced by their background—and this can come from various reasons. If someone comes from a different socioeconomic background, or lifestyle, their thought processes and their view of life might be much more different than mine. Their reaction to a certain situation can be much more different than mine, and it is important for me to see all these viewpoints in order to be a more informed member of my community. Everyone is diverse in their expression, style, and
Imagine a society where education isn’t entirely dependent upon the merits of one’s personal knowledge. Where the learning environment is utilized for personal development and growth rather than competition and separation. A sanctuary composed of unity and equity among peers. A place where college isn’t the only goal, but rather personal identity and initiative are established along the way. Such a society, fully embodies Baldwin’s ideology regarding education, and the prejudices therein. In his speech, “A Talk to Teachers” Baldwin delivers a compelling argument, in which he criticizes the problems and prejudices within the educational system in his day. However, through his sagacious philosophies and eye-opening opinions, Baldwin manifests the cruel, unspoken truth within his speech, that the hindrances and prejudices experienced in his day are still existent in 2016.
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.
Arizona State University (2005), stated humans have learned to be prejudiced “through evolution as an adaptive response to protect ourselves from danger”. However, this instinct goes wrong because a majority of people are unable to see past prejudices and develop better understandings of their environments. This often results in harmful acts between different groups and would suggest that it must be controlled if not eliminated. Based on Rauch's thinking however, prejudice and its developments should not be removed from public environments like the university campus because it is necessary to have true intellectual pluralism based on unfiltered human thoughts. The question remains of whether the benefits of intellectual pluralism have to come at the cost of allowing harmful acts of prejudice to exist. In the university setting, the answer is no. So long as universities work to channel prejudice as a means of advancing knowledge the way Rauch believes it should, the negative developments of prejudice that people attempt to eradicate would be kept to a
He also appreciated the simplicity of life and wished not to complicate it with thousands of affairs, but rather, two or three.
During the 60’s and 70’s, people have thrashed out with their words and each other. This caused some awareness in schools due to the offensiveness of the matter. During the 80’s schools began on focusing on preventing this kind of speech on their campuses. Since then, students have become more and more sensitive in a negative way. The authors used an example of a kid shouting “Shut up, you water buffalo” at an Israeli born student. That incident made national news, just for calling another kid a “water buffalo.” Another example is when a university found a student guilty of racial harassment for reading a book honoring student opposition to the Ku Klux Clan. The picture on the cover of the book offended one of the student’s co-workers. Just because the student was reading a book, minding his own business, the student was punished from the university. Never said anything or hurt anyone physically, and his education was ruined by someone taking offense to a book he was reading. The authors used this extreme example to prove that accepting the fact that student are fragile and letting them be fragile is not the right way to go and the past can prove
All over the country, universities are setting up areas called “safe spaces” where potential harmful ideas are not allowed in order to protect students from ideas that may “trigger” or offend them. These occurrences are all apart of the “Political Correctness” movement that encourages people to avoid certain words and phrases that insult or marginalize minorities and the disadvantaged. Many schools, however, are fighting against this phenomenon. The Dean of the University of Chicago sent a letter to the incoming freshman class warning them that “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” would not be tolerated at the university (Levinovitz). He was met with hostility as students “argued that the dean willfully ignored or misunderstood these intended
In “The Coddling of the American Mind” the moral dilemma surrounding college speech codes is discussed. While some people see speech codes as a way to protect students from discrimination or from reliving past traumatic experiences, I believe that they take this too far and damage the learning environment. From a moral standpoint it is critical to protect students from being subjected to racist or sexist verbal attacks, but the accusation that your speech is a microaggression or threatening can lead to huge consequences including the loss of your job or place in school. These overly protective speech codes have the potential to ruin the lives of students and teachers who never intended to cause offense, while not having one at all can allow
Everyone should have the right to a good quality education. They should be taught to give their opinion of different ideas and express their feeling instead they are taught to follow the society rule. In the article “The pedagogy of the oppressed”, Paulo Freire talks about the relationship between the student and the teacher and how each of them play a different role in the educational system. The teacher 's role is to educate the students by making them copy what is on the board and memorizing, sometimes without understanding what it means because that’s what they are paid to do. On the other hand, the students have to listen to what the teachers say, copy what they write and memorize it without saying a word or asking any questions because the teachers are the only ones responsible for that. Writer and Activist James Baldwin says that “The purpose of education, finally, is to create in a person the ability to look at the world for himself, to make his own decisions… To ask questions of the universe, and then learn to live with those questions, is the way he achieves his own identity. But no society is really anxious to have that kind of person around. What societies really, ideally, want is a citizenry which will simply obey the rules of society.” Education should be fun for the people to learn more and encouraged to do better but it is not. They are forced to learn what society wants them to instead of letting them create new ideas and letting them do what they want to
On American college campuses nowadays, many people talk about microaggressions and political correctness. For example, there is an Asian guy studying in the library, and a white guy comes up to him and asks for help with his math homework. Some people say this act is offensive because the white guy assumes that the Asian guy is good at mathematics because he is Asian. There are many stereotypes about Asians in the U.S, and being good at math is one of them. Stereotypes are usually bad, but in this case, the Asian guy should not be offended by the act of being asked to help with mathematics even if he is not good at math. It is true that it depends on the acts, they can be offensive sometimes, but people are focusing so much about not offending others’ feelings and try to avoid microaggressions and be politically correct nowadays. Additionally, many universities promote the political correctness to students and professors. Therefore, this recent
In order to understand minimal artists’ tendency to produce objects and not images, we need to define minimalism. Michael Delahunt at Artlex (1) refers to minimalism as “A twentieth century style of art stressing the idea of reducing a work of art to the minimum number of colors, values, shapes, lines and textures”. But I think this definition does not completely reflect what minimal artists did. They did not get interested in ‘complex’ things as colors, values, lines etc.
In the end, what we learn from this article is very realistic and logical. Furthermore, it is supported with real-life examples. Culture is ordinary, each individual has it, and it is both individual and common. It’s a result of both traditional values and an individual effort. Therefore, trying to fit it into certain sharp-edged models would be wrong.
I am a simple person, who came from a simple background. I like to have fun, I learn,