The University of Southern California: The Teddy Bear MassacreLike so many other traditions, the burning of the bruin was put on the chopping block recently. The long running University of Southern California spirit activity consisted of throwing a large stuffed bear in a bon fire the night before the football game against their rival, the University of California at Los Angeles. The Black Student Union and other student organizations recently questioned the event. Their concern was that the event too closely resembled past lynching of African Americans in the American south.This raises the question of whether it is appropriate to censor ideas that are not created to offend certain groups. Political correctness, the underlying ideal, is the "particular set of attitudes about the world that its proponents maintain should be actively promoted." [Clark 369] Proponents of political correctness, or PC, had good intentions in devising the idea, but it has serious flaws.
Although political correctness was founded with good intent, it does more harm than good.The most noticeable example of harm is how PC proponents try to please everyone at the same time. The burning of the bruin was just one of many activities held during the week before the big UCLA game. The idea being that everyone could find something that they could identify with and rally around their school. If the burning was intentionally created to represent or oppress the offended students, the event would have been banned long ago. However, as Matt Hutaff stated in his editorial in the Daily Trojan:"It's about school pride. It's love for the things that brought the university to where it is today.
It is traditions that define a school; it's student body and its heritage. Strip the school of its traditions and all you have is a school that isn't worth rallying behind." [5]In appeasing one group, it seems the university neglected another group. It seems that the lesson that one cannot please everyone all the time still needs to be learned.Another lesson that needs to be learned is to meet offensive language head on instead of hiding from it. This cannot happen, however, if the college is sheltering us from it. It is the duty of the university to teach us how to live in the real world. How are they going to protect us from what we do not want to hear out there?
The answer is they cannot, and the sheltered individuals are left unprepared to confront real world situations that will offend them.
In the landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), John Tinker and his siblings decided to openly protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school (Goldman 1). The school felt that their efforts to protest the war disrupted the school environment. “The Supreme Court said that ‘in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.’ School officials cannot silence student speech simply because they dislike it or it is controversial or unpopular” (FAQs 2). What about theatrical performance? Should certain plays not be performed at school because of inflammatory content? Theatrical performance plays a significant role during various years of a child’s youth, but, alone, has one central aim that allows for tolerance and multifariousness within the “salad bowl” United States. High school theatre arts curriculum’s purpose is to develop appreciation of the doctrines, perspectives, principles, and consciousness of diversified individuals in distinctive epochs throughout history as conveyed through literary works and theatre. If theatre has this sort of impact, why does the school administration, teachers, parents, even the state government, infringe upon the student body’s First Amendment rights? Schools should make no policy that would chastise a student for speaking their mind or expressing oneself, unless the process by which they are expressing themselves meddles with the educational methods and the claims of others. If a student threatens another student under “the right” of being able to speak freely, one would hope a school would take immediate action before potential harm occurs. The First Amendment clearly states 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.” In reference to students and a school environment, the definition of freedom of speech and expression becomes very unclear as to what they can and cannot say.
Today, there are student laws regarding disruption that were brought about because of the court case (Sternburg). If what is said is not disruptive in the classroom, create chaos, or invade other 's rights, it is considered acceptable (McPherson 86). The students involved in the Tinker case were lucky since they were protected because they were not disruptive, nor was there offensive speech (“Tinker v. Des Moines: Establishing the Right”). It is important for students to avoid disruptions to prevent offensive speech that could be taken as
He appeals to the concerns of the audience by addressing the First Amendment mentioning the fact that “Speech protected under the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil (4).” The opinion of Bok conveys the difference between what is displayed as insensitive of ones beliefs and causes others to be uncomfortable in their environment of higher learning. He argues that the students who displayed the Confederate flag had to have known that their actions would be upsetting and offensive to some students. As a result feelings are involved and could very well affect the community of which the students reside. By pointing this out Bok hopes to persuade universities to come up with a better way to exercise the First Amendment and avoid racial tension amongst the student
Hughes overemphasizes America’s infatuation with political correctness, but fails to understand the real issue. It is undeniably true that “no sifting of words is going to reduce the amount of bigotry in this or any other society” (21). However, racist labels are prevalent in American society which remind minority groups of their inferior status. The professional football team in our nation’s capital is called the ‘Redskins.’ This moniker is the result of a politically incorrect past that has not been rectified. Political correctness intends to change the way we label things so that minority groups are not excluded or demeaned. Certainly Hughes would object to calling a rugby team in Australia the ‘Sydney Blackies.’ Hughes was right in understanding that political correctness will not cause dramatic changes, but racism in any form, no matter how small, is bad for society. Regardless, he spends too much time discussing this issue. Political correctness warranted more attention for Hughes than it does in the national media today. It is quite telling that only five years after its publication this material is already outdated.
What if a college sponsors an activity, such as an “ugliest woman contest” where boys dress up as girls, and someone in the contest were to dress up as Aunt Jemima? At most public colleges and universities, such a display would be protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have to worry about people doing such things? Wouldn’t the world be better if people had some common sense and displayed some respect for others by not doing or saying things that would alienate or offend other cultures, races, lifestyles, or sexes? Unfortunately, this is not the case and many public colleges and universities are caught in a balancing act between preserving their students’ First Amendment rights, while also trying to preserve the rights of their students to live and learn in an environment that is free from offensive language or actions.
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.
Political correctness may be a coined term that the general population does not necessarily know the definition of, but is relevant in every single person’s life. In today’s society one must be very careful when verbalizing opinions in order to prevent offending others around, or from disturbing the Politically Correct Puritans: those who strongly support censorship of politically incorrect labels (Suedfeld et al 1994). There are many different theories as to what makes political correctness important and why college campuses seem to be so heavily surrounded by political correcting activists, but oddly enough there has not been an extensive amount of research done on the topic.
In “Voices from the Margins: The regulation of Student Activism in the New Corporate University”, Elizabeth Brule analyzes how student codes of conduct are used to regulate student political advocacy on campuses in North America. Over the years, there has been an ongoing battle between student activists and institutional policies which regulate social justice advocacy work. Students continuously broadcast political views in an attempt to exercise constitutional rights of free speech. Some in which, have been sanctioned by respective educational facilities. More specifically, York University, Canada’s third largest public university, had its first Student Code of Conduct in 1970. The implementation of the code has emerged to be based on principles
Colleges and universities control their faculties and students’ actions by shaming and criticizing their faculties and students on social media when the faculty’s or student’s actions cause distresses to other college students. They also control their faculties’ or students’ actions by firing the faculty or suspending the student. In an article that is posted on the website Newsweek, Nina Burleigh states that “American college campuses are starting to resemble George Orwell’s Oceania with its Thought Police, or East Germany under the Stasi. College newspapers have been muzzled and trashed, and students are disciplined or suspended for “hate speech,” while exponentially more are being shamed and silenced on social media by their peers. Professors quake at the possibility of accidentally offending any student and are rethinking syllabi and restricting class discussions to only the most anodyne topics.” The idea American colleges and universities are compared to the Stasi, the secret police of East Germany, or a thought police shows how dangerous and restrictive college campuses have become. This quote also cites the fact colleges have tried to censor their own newspaper as one of the examples how dangerous campuses have become. The fact that colleges try to censor their own newspaper and to intimidate their professors is troubling because this fact indicates that American colleges and
Studies from universities such as UCLA, show, “ emotional harm is the equal intensity to that experienced by the body, and even long-lasting and traumatic.” ( Rosenbaum, 173) a university like to claim their reasoning to limit free speech on campus is to protect students them physically and emotionally by essentially limited their first amendment rights. That is not from of protection limiting students rights is not a long term solution. It is true that freedom of speech unconditionally is taking for granted when slander is direct to aggressively attacking someone which might lead to physical harm. It is a good thing that campuses and employers take action to prevent such events from happing. But at the cost of limiting the first amendment right is not the way to go. Most employees working in the private sector generally have no right to free speech, for those who break company policy can deal with disciplinary consequences and lost their job which is why most do not choose to fight against not have their first amendment right exercised. In 2010 a student by the name of Amanda Tatro poses a very controversial blog on social media facebook when the school found out about it. They took immediate action, amends “ criminal investigation concluded that Tatro had no intent to harm anyone, but the university imposed disciplinary charges anyway, including a failing grade and mandatory psychiatric exam.” ( LoMonte) even though Amanda was not on campus physically nor did she target any special person emotionally or physically, the campus power over limiting her right to free speech resulted in bad consequences for her actions which led to no harm. This is not right, an American citizen got in trouble for expression their first ardent right setting right at home causing no harm to no one. It is true slander
In today’s time, people take offense to everything. This can be seen every day in the media; thousands of people protest in cities across the nation on a daily basis for so called “social injustices” and offensive remarks. Conor Friedersdorf explores an example of this in his article, “The New Intolerance of Student Activism.” Friedersdorf describes the explosion of protest on Yale University’s campus after a staff member sent an email out to the student body that offended numerous students. Friedersdorf is not alone; it seems there in a new protest to report every day. In a nation that is supposedly becoming more accepting, it seems it has become more intolerant.
Charles R. Lawrence III adresses the matter in his essay “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims,” by providing the perspective of those on the reciving end. He explains that “racial slurs are particularly undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetuator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialoge, but to injure the victim” (628). This argument is justified because some people do take their freedom of speech as far as offending someone because of their race, cultural, and social beliefs. As Cinnamon Stillwell proved in her essay, “Mob Rule on College Campuses,” some students do become bullies when their beliefs are challenged. Stillwell illistrates a situation that occurred at Columbia University when conservative Jim Gilchrist was invited to speak but was unable to because rioting students did not allow him. Stillwell then goes on to say that “Apparently in their minds, niether Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has the right to express their viewpoints” (623). This can be applied to both sides because both of them seem to believe that the opposing belief has no right to speak especially when it is controversial. Lawrence mentions that “whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
The “Politically Correct” movement’s purpose is to bring historically condescending terms, offensive music and art, and controversial educational content to an end and replace them with more positive and less-offending references. Offensive and demoralizing efforts are wrong, but the censorship and deletion of words and phrases that do not contain the intention to demoralize are taking political correctness too far. Politically correct (or “PC”) antics have created a social decline that is growing worse with each generation, specifically regarding areas of art, education, language, and our right to freedom of speech; the degradation they have brought to the American psyche has even led to name-changing.
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.